For more information about the

KNOWLEDGE PAPERS
Urban Development Series, contact:

Urban Development and Local Government Unit

WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Sustainable Development Network
The World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC, 20433
USA
WHAT A WASTE
Email: urbanhelp@worldbank.org
A Global Review of Solid Waste Management
Website: www.worldbank.org/urban

March 2012, No. 15

Previous Knowledge Papers in This Series
Lessons and Experiences from Private Sector Initiatives
Mainstreaming HIV/AIDS into Urban/ in Slum Upgrading
Water (AFTU1 & AFTU2) Projects Judy L. Baker and Kim McClain,
Nina Schuler, Alicia Casalis, Sylvie Debomy, May 2009, No. 8
Christianna Johnnides, and Kate Kuper,
September 2005, No. 1 The Urban Rehabilitation of the
Medinas: The World Bank Experience
Occupational and Environmental in the Middle East and North Africa
Health Issues of Solid Waste Anthony G. Bigio and Guido Licciardi,
Management: Special Emphasis on May 2010, No. 9
Middle and Lower-Income Countries
Sandra Cointreau, July 2006, No. 2 Cities and Climate Change:
An Urgent Agenda
A Review of Urban Development Issues Daniel Hoornweg, December 2010, No. 10
in Poverty Reduction Strategies
Judy L. Baker and Iwona Reichardt, Memo to the Mayor: Improving Access
June 2007, No. 3 to Urban Land for All Residents —
Fulfilling the Promise
Urban Poverty in Ethiopia: A Multi- Barbara Lipman, with Robin Rajack,
Faceted and Spatial Perspective June 2011, No. 11
Elisa Muzzini, January 2008, No. 4
Conserving the Past as a Foundation
Urban Poverty: A Global View for the Future: China-World Bank
Judy L. Baker, January 2008, No. 5 Partnership on Cultural Heritage
Conservation
Preparing Surveys for Urban Katrinka Ebbe, Guido Licciardi
Upgrading Interventions: and Axel Baeumler, September 2011, No. 12
Prototype Survey
Instrument and User Guide Guidebook on Capital Investment
Ana Goicoechea, April 2008, No. 6 Planning for Local Governments
Olga Kaganova, October 2011, No. 13
Exploring Urban Growth Management:
Insights from Three Cities
Mila Freire, Douglas Webster,
and Christopher Rose, June 2008, No. 7

Cover photo on right and on this page: Conakry landfill, Guinea (Charles Peterson photographer).
Cover photo on far left: separate containers for recyclables and non-recyclables, Barcelona, Spain (Perinaz Bhada-Tata photographer).

KNOWLEDGE PAPERS

WHAT A WASTE
A Global Review of Solid
Waste Management

Daniel Hoornweg and Perinaz Bhada-Tata

March 2012, No. 15

Across the five domains of the Urban Strategy. or will remain. NW Washington. .worldbank. the Urban Development Series discusses the challenge of urbanization and what it will mean for developing countries in the decades ahead. It does not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. the Series provides a focal point for publications that seek to foster a better understanding of (i) the core elements of the city system. DC 20433 USA www. (iii) city economies. accurate or appropriate. 2012 All rights reserved Urban Development & Local Government Unit World Bank 1818 H Street. The World Bank has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs and citations for external or third-party sources referred to in this publication.Urban Development Series Produced by the World Bank’s Urban Development and Local Government Unit of the Sustainable Development Network. This note is provided for information only. The Series aims to explore and delve more substantively into the core issues framed by the World Bank’s 2009 Urban Strategy Systems of Cities: Harnessing Urbanization for Growth and Poverty Alleviation. (iv) urban land and housing markets. (ii) pro-poor policies. (v) sustainable urban environment. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. Copyright © World Bank. and does not guarantee that any content is. and other urban issues germane to the urban development agenda for sustainable cities and communities.org/urban This publication is a product of the staff of the World Bank Group.

Waste and the Environment 25 A Note on the Reliability of Solid Waste Data 32 . Waste Collection 13 5.TABLE OF CONTENTS Maxim Tupikov /Shutterstock. Waste Disposal 22 7. Introduction 1 2. Global Waste Management Practices 4 3.com Foreword vii Acknowledgements viii Executive Summary ix Abbreviations and Acronyms xi Country Classification According to Region xii Country Classification According to Income xiii 1. Waste Composition 16 6. Waste Generation 8 4.

MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100.000 71 I. Map of Regions 36 B. MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100. MSW Composition by Country 90 N.000 78 J. The Global City Indicators Program 94 References 95 . Map of Income Distribution 38 C. MSW Collection Rates by Country 84 L.iv URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Annexes A. Countries Excluded for Lack of Data 45 E. MSW Disposal Methods by Country 87 M.000 47 G.000 63 H. MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100. Estimated Solid Waste Management Costs 46 F. IPCC Classification of MSW Composition 93 O. MSW Generation by Country — Current Data and Projections for 2025 80 K. Availability of MSW Data by Country 40 D. MSW Composition Data for Cities Over 100.

Waste generation projections for 2025 by income 11 7. Landfill classifications 29 14. Waste collection rates by income 15 5. Components of an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan 25 4. Waste generation by income level 11 3. Urban waste generation by income level and year 12 4. Sources for 2025 projections of solid waste generation 12 8. Low-income countries waste disposal 24 13. Waste hierarchy 27 List of Boxes 1. Solid waste composition by income and year 20 10. Integrated Sustainable Waste Management Framework 26 . Waste composition in China 17 7. Current waste generation per capita by income level 10 6. Waste collection rates by region 15 6. Generators and types of solid waste 7 3. Waste composition by region 21 11. MSW disposal by income 23 12. Global solid waste composition 17 8. Types of waste and their sources 16 10. Waste generation by region 9 2. Technical GHG mitigation opportunities by waste management component 31 List of Figures 1. MSW disposal in two contrasting regions 24 13. Average MSW generation rates by income 12 9. Upper middle-income countries waste disposal 24 14. Current waste generation per capita by region 9 4. Comparison of solid waste management practices by income level 5 2. What a Waste 1999: What’s changed (and what hasn’t) in the last decade 2 2. Waste generation projections for 2025 by region 10 5. Definitions of Municipal Solid Waste 4 3. Types of waste composition by income level 19 11. Waste composition by income 19 9. Total MSW disposed of worldwide 22 12. Landfill methane emissions and total GHG emissions for selected countries 30 15. WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT v List of Tables 1.

.

about $375. Jordan Photo: Perinaz Bhada-Tata . extensive supply and transportation networks. FOREWORD Photo: ©Simone D. The recycling industry. Turkey mental impacts and costs vary dramatically. Solid waste is a large source of methane. Locally. Cost increases will Improving solid waste management.5 billion in 2025. McCourtie/World Bank Solid waste management is the one thing just than two million informal waste pickers. especially be most severe in low income countries (more in low income countries. The report you have before you is an important Waste generation rates will more than double over one that provides a quick snapshot of the state of the next twenty years in lower income countries. solid waste management costs will A credible estimate is made for what the situation increase from today’s annual $205. and public health impacts important municipal service and serves as a such as respiratory ailments. diarrhea and dengue prerequisite for other municipal action. this report will contribute to the countries (more than 4-fold increases).2 billion tonnes by 2025. today’s global solid waste management practices. fever. air pollution.3 billion budgetary item. The findings are sobering. uncollected solid waste contributes to solid waste management is arguably the most flooding. powerful GHG that is particularly impactful in Sustainable Development the short-term. While service levels. The global impacts of solid waste are growing Rachel Kyte fast. Globally. is an urgent priority. is now ITC landfill and about every city government provides for a global business with international markets and recycling center. world cities generate about 1. with more The World Bank Ghabawi landfill. Amman. than 5-fold increases) and lower-middle income Hopefully. This volume is expected to increase to 2. In lower income country cities solid waste management is usually a city’s single largest Currently. tonnes of solid waste per year. dialogue that leads to much-needed action.4 billion to will look like in 2025. a Vice President and Head of Network. its residents. Ankara. environ.

and managed by Abha Joshi- Ghani. Marcus Lee. and Sintana Vergara for their useful feedback and comments. Economics and Local Government Department. . Charles Peterson. The authors would like to thank Christa Anderson. Adelaide Barra. The report was also discussed and reviewed by the World Bank’s Waste Management Thematic Group. Director of the Finance. Julianne Baker Gallegos. John Norton. Catalina Marulanda. Manager of the Urban Development and Local Government Unit and Zoubida Allaoua. Jeffrey Lecksell and Claudia Lorena Trejos Gomez provided support and research assistance.Acknowledgements This report was written by Daniel Hoornweg and Perinaz Bhada-Tata. Carl Bartone. Paul Procee. Xiaofeng Li. The ‘Waste and Climate Change’ section is from Charles Peterson.

countries as well as many middle-income countries.3 billion urban residents generating the increasingly global linkages of products. one of the most important to manage more complex services such as health. and of MSW per person per day (0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Photo: Ron Perry/Oki Golf As the world hurtles toward its urban within the local government’s purview. improperly managed waste usually tonnes per year). or transportation.9 billion urban Poorly managed waste has an enormous impact residents who generated about 0. incomparable and one of the largest employers. Despite its importance. By 2025 this will likely increase from the organic fraction of the waste stream. of landfill site by-products of an urban lifestyle. The global nature of MSW includes its kg per person per day (1. A city that Golf course: future. This report estimates results in down-stream costs higher than what it that today these amounts have increased would have cost to manage the waste properly in the to about 3 billion residents generating 1. This report provides consolidated data on MSW Municipal solid waste management is the most generation. urban about 1.3 billion tonnes contribution to GHG emissions. even faster than the rate of urbanization. local and global environment. e. Solid waste and incomplete.2 billion tonnes per year). Data is often inconsistent. in low-income by country and by region. Jordan Photo: Perinaz Bhada-Tata .g.64 kg on health.68 billion economy. reliable global MSW information is not typically MSW is the largest single budget item for cities available. however as suggested in this report is usually the one service that falls completely there is now enough MSW information to estimate Ghabawi landfill. is growing education. and the recycling industry. Amman. composition. Ten years ago there were 2.42 kg/capita/day of municipal solid practices. waste (2.2 first place. and disposal important service a city provides. the methane per year). collection. and to 4. the amount of municipal solid cannot effectively manage its waste is rarely able post closure use waste (MSW).

This the East Asia and the Pacific Region Urban and Men pick up used link is likely similar with other urban inputs/ Local Government Sector of the World Bank in cardboard boxes to outputs such as waste water and total energy use. Municipal planners should manage solid waste in as holistic a manner as possible. both Globally. While in more affluent to rates of urbanization and increases in GDP. is usually a prerequisite for other. particularly that of secondary materials. focusing on urban form inter-dependence between nations and linkages in Salvador. compo. plans and budgets for solid waste management in the coming years. given data availability and increased open-air market in more holistic approach. Similar overall MSW programming. more compli- cated. Middle East. This report is a follow-up to What a Waste: Solid Waste There is a strong correlation between urban solid Management in Asia. 1999. and disposal data by city and by country. waste volumes are increasing quickly – formal and informal. global trade. collection. The report has been expanded to include the sell for recycling in the San Joaquin Reviewing MSW in an integrated manner with a entire world. municipal services. other parts the effective integration of waste pickers. a Working Paper Published by waste generation rates and GHG emissions. Brazil and lifestyle choice may yield broader benefits. Detailed annexes provide Improving MSW is one of the most effective ways available MSW generation. Photo: Alejandro Lipszyc/World Bank . and parts of Eastern Europe and the larly in low-income countries. have a significant impact on even faster than the rate of urbanization. of MSW growth are fastest in China. Waste workers. x URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS global amounts and trends. particu- of East Asia. The report also makes Pollution such as solid waste. is critical. rates countries ageing workers are a growing challenge. GHG emissions projections on MSW generation and composition and ozone-depleting substances are by-products of for 2025 in order for decision makers to prepare urbanization and increasing affluence. to strengthen overall municipal management and sition.

and institutional IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISWM Integrated solid waste management Kg/capita/day kilograms per capita per day LCR Latin America and the Caribbean region LIC Low-income country LMIC Lower middle-income country MENA Middle East and North Africa region METAP Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program MRF Materials recovery facility MSW Municipal solid waste mtCO2e Million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PAHO Pan-American Health Organization RDF Refuse–derived fuel SAR South Asia region SWM Solid waste management tCO2e Tons of carbon dioxide equivalent UMIC Upper middle-income country . WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT xi Abbreviations and Acronyms AFR Africa region C&D Construction and demolition CDM Clean Development Mechanism EAP East Asia and Pacific region ECA Europe and Central Asia region GDP Gross Domestic Product GHG Greenhouse gas HIC High-income country ICI Industrial. commercial.

China Georgia Chile Kuwait Finland Chad Malaysia Latvia Colombia Lebanon France Comoros Marshall Islands Lithuania Costa Rica Malta Germany Congo. Myanmar Poland Dominica Oman Hungary Cote d’Ivoire Philippines Romania Dominican Republic Qatar Iceland Eritrea Singapore Russian Federation Ecuador Saudi Arabia Ireland Ethiopia Solomon Islands Serbia El Salvador Syrian Arab Republic Italy Gabon Thailand Slovenia Grenada Tunisia Japan Gambia Tonga Tajikistan Guatemala United Arab Emirates Korea. Lucia United Kingdom St. Islamic Rep. Austria India Burkina Faso Fiji Bulgaria Barbados Iran. RB Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone South Africa Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe . South Ghana Vanuatu Turkey Guyana West Bank and Gaza Luxembourg Guinea Vietnam Turkmenistan Haiti Monaco Kenya Honduras Netherlands Lesotho Jamaica New Zealand Liberia Mexico Norway Madagascar Nicaragua Portugal Malawi Panama Slovak Republic Mali Paraguay Spain Mauritania Peru Sweden Mauritius St. Belgium Maldives Burundi Hong Kong Croatia Belize Iraq Canada Nepal Cameroon Indonesia Cyprus Bolivia Israel Czech Republic Pakistan Cape Verde Lao PDR Estonia Brazil Jordan Denmark Sri Lanka Central African Republic Macao. Dem. Vincent and the Namibia United States Grenadines Niger Suriname Nigeria Trinidad and Tobago Rwanda Uruguay Sao Tome and Principe Venezuela. Mongolia Macedonia. The Egypt. FYR Cuba Morocco Greece Congo. Arab Rep. Rep. Kitts and Nevis Switzerland Mozambique St.xii URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Country Classification According to Region East Asia Eastern Latin America Middle East Organisation for Africa South Asia & Pacific & Central Asia & the Caribbean & North Africa Economic Co-operation (AFR) (SAR) (EAP) (ECA) (LAC) (MENA) and Development (OECD) Angola Brunei Darussalam Albania Antigua and Barbuda Algeria Andorra Bangladesh Benin Cambodia Armenia Argentina Bahrain Australia Bhutan Botswana China Belarus Bahamas. Rep.

Cape Verde Cuba Brunei Darussalam Eritrea China Dominica Canada Ethiopia Congo. Kitts and Nevis Monaco Uganda Philippines St. South Senegal Morocco Romania Kuwait Serbia Nicaragua Russian Federation Luxembourg Sierra Leone Nigeria Seychelles Macao. FYR Panama Italy Niger Maldives Peru Japan Rwanda Marshall Islands Poland Korea. Mauritius Hungary Mauritania Iraq Mexico Iceland Mongolia Jordan Myanmar Ireland Mozambique Lesotho Namibia Israel Nepal Macedonia. Vincent and the Grenadines New Zealand Vietnam Solomon Islands Suriname Norway Zambia Sri Lanka Tajikistan Oman Zimbabwe Sudan Uruguay Portugal Swaziland Venezuela. WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT xiii Country Classification According to Income Lower Income (LI) Lower Middle Income (LMI) Upper Middle Income (UMI) High Income (HIC) Chad Bulgaria Colombia Barbados Comoros Cameroon Costa Rica Belgium Congo. Lucia Netherlands Vanuatu Sao Tome and Principe St. Dem. Arab Rep. China Tanzania Pakistan South Africa Malta Togo Paraguay St. Islamic Rep. Georgia Denmark Haiti El Salvador Grenada Estonia Kenya Guatemala Jamaica Finland Lao PDR Guyana Latvia France Liberia Honduras Lebanon Germany Madagascar India Lithuania Greece Malawi Indonesia Malaysia Hong Kong. China Mali Iran. Rep. Dominican Republic Croatia Gambia Cote d'Ivoire Fiji Cyprus Ghana Ecuador Gabon Czech Republic Guinea Egypt. Rep. RB Qatar Syrian Arab Republic Saudi Arabia Thailand Singapore Tonga Slovak Republic Tunisia Slovenia Turkey Spain Turkmenistan Sweden West Bank and Gaza Switzerland Trinidad and Tobago United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States .

.

WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 1 Introduction In 1999 the World Bank published What a Waste: Managing municipal solid waste is an intensive Solid Waste Management in Asia (Hoornweg and service. and management of staff — both formal and informal. This is sibility of local governments and is often their especially true in China. the friction between ‘sanctioned’ and ‘unsanctioned’ recycling. In oping countries. ageing demographics (solid waste workers tend to be younger). All of these skills are prerequi- studies for China and India and the Pan-American sites for other municipal services. Dhaka. Health Organization’s study for Latin America. 1 Solid waste management — formal and informal – represents 1% to 5% of all urban employment. health and safety. employment generation. Photo: Scott Wallace Illustration: Brian Fray . source of employment. even taking environmentally optimal manner possible. contract management. As formality increases so do issues of labor organi- zation. particularly in devel. Solid into account the recent economic contraction. and increasingly with demographic change in the work force.1 Additionally. decade more accurate and comprehensive data and ongoing expertise in capital and operating became available for most regions of the world. China surpassed single largest budget item. Therefore a global update of the 1999 report is The original What a Waste Report provided waste possible. estimates for South and East Asia. local waste management officials also need to deal with the integrated and international aspects of solid waste. Ferry men parking their boats on Buriganga River. solid waste is one of the most pernicious local pollutants The main objective of this updated What a Waste — uncollected solid waste is usually the leading Report is to provide current municipal solid waste contributor to local flooding and air and water pollution. the US as the world’s largest waste generator. Solid waste management and 2030. In 2004. profes- and composition for Asia. Photo taken as part of Development 360 project. socially. And if that task were not large enough. In the intervening sional and often unionized labor management. This waste stream represents about 33% of the world’s total Municipal solid waste managers are charged with quantities. budgeting and finance. and producer pay arguments and apportioning costs and responsibilities. Municipalities need capacities in Thomas 1999). Most growth predictions made in What an enormous task: get the waste out from underfoot a Waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia were and do so in the most economically. with an estimate of waste quantities procurement. MSW also requires a OECD-country estimates are typically reliable and strong social contract between the municipality consistent—added to these were comprehensive and community. China will likely produce twice as much street sweeping is also often the city’s single largest municipal solid waste as the United States. waste management is almost always the respon. waste growth estimates were conservative. and reasonably accurate and in most cases. and timely.

In most cases or 1. These estimates are still accurate. their economic wealth increases. further local analysis will be needed. Portugal.3 billion with a sufficient foundation on which to base tonnes of MSW are generated globally every year. At present. waste management policy decisions. This for 2025. Lisbon. and even within cities. between cities.8 million tonnes per day. As data by country and by region. data presented in the 1999 publication and this publication. Waste generation rates tend to be much Solid waste is inextricably linked to urban. composition. ``Low-income countries continue to spend most of their SWM budgets on waste collection. continues to have a majority of organics and paper in its waste stream: The combined totals are 72% for EAP and 54% for SAR. and commodity prices. For erable differences in waste generation rates across a summary on the main differences between the countries. demographics and immigration are critical factors. The actual per capita rates. on average. This increase. purchase fewer store-bought . but this report however. please refer to Box 1. used aluminum cans are deposited into a container for recycling Bigstock Photo © generation. residents ization and economic development. are highly variable. Growth in waste quantities is fastest in Asia. Solid waste is generally considered an ‘urban’ issue.2 kg/capita/day.2 BOX 1 What a Waste 1999: What’s Changed (and What Hasn’t) in the Last Decade ``What a Waste (1999) predicted that by 2025 the daily MSW generation rate in Asia would be 1. and disposal urbanize. As countries are usually poorer. ``Rates of recycling are increasingly influenced by global markets. lower in rural areas since. Both developing standards of living and disposable incomes and developed countries are included. which results in a corresponding and composition on a country and regional level increase in the amount of waste generated. with only a fraction going toward disposal. ``There is a greater emphasis on labor issues: in high- income countries. consumption of goods and services report makes projections on MSW generation increases. ``Asia. collection. This should provide decision makers report estimates that at present almost 1. as there are consid- is intended to provide a broad global review. This is the opposite in high-income countries where the main expendi- ture is on disposal. relative shipping costs. like much of the world. the daily generation rate in South Asia and East Asia and the Pacific combined is approximately 1 million tonnes per day. in low-income countries working conditions and integration of waste pickers has gained in importance.

continue their rapid pace of In most cities. and the rate of urbanization is increasing lifestyle. By 2050. Solid waste is higher levels of reuse and recycling. more the most visible and pernicious by-product of a than 50 percent of the world’s population lives in resource-intensive. global solid waste volumes is to reduce economic activity—not quantities are projected to increase considerably. product design and waste separation. ‘urban mining’ as the largest source of materials like metal and paper may be found in cities. WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 3 items (which results in less packaging). As countries. This by-products to our urban lifestyles. the quickest way to reduce waste urbanization and development. Citizens sustainability of today’s global economic structure and corporations will likely need to assume more is beyond the scope of this paper. solid responsibility for waste generation and disposal. Greenhouse gas emissions. waste managers need to appreciate the global specifically. consumer-based economic cities. The long term will add challenges to waste disposal. Illustration: Brian Fray . India and China. This report makes projections for MSW gener- ation in 2025. Today. and have generally an attractive option. water quickly. context of solid waste and its interconnections to Also likely to emerge will be a greater emphasis on economies and local and global pollution. based on expected population and Waste is mainly a by-product of consumer-based economic growth rates. as many people will live in cities pollution and endocrine disruptors are similar as the population of the whole world in 2000. particularly lifestyles that drive much of the world’s economies. However.

Photo: ©Simone D. dirt. For example.. electronic waste). ` The last two decades have brought a new challenge for waste management: the growing vagaries of global secondary materials markets. of air pollution and ash disposal. glass (and pottery and china). Turkey . By PAHO: Solid or semi-solid waste generated in population centers including domestic and. and other (e. contents of litter containers. yard and garden. and market cleansing. street sweepings.4 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Global Waste Management Practices At a Glance: ` In solid waste management there is no throwing ‘away’. nappies (disposable diapers). collection vehicles. waste neighboring residents. commercial wastes. metal. Waste from municipal sewage networks and treatment. Landfills require land ities and the integrated nature of materials and availability. as well as those originated by the small-scale industries and institutions (including hospital and clinics). Ankara. market street sweeping. system complex. and siting is often opposed by potential pollution are quickly apparent. Solving one problem often incineration is expensive and poses challenges introduces a new one. wood. soil. dust. and much of the waste When ‘throwing away’ waste. or for municipalities. garden (yard) and park waste. BOX 2 Definitions of Municipal Solid Waste By OECD: Municipal waste is collected and treated by. paper and cardboard. insti- tutions and small businesses. and from public cleansing. and waste disposal methods contribute to GHG emissions. similar waste from commerce and trade. and if not well executed. plastics. stream is not combustible. ash. ITC landfill and recycling center. ` The organic fraction of waste. It covers waste from households. textiles. containerized to stay dry. including bulky waste. office buildings. as well as municipal construction and demolition is excluded. rubber and leather. Incineration the new problem is often of greater cost and requires waste placed outside for collection to be complexity. McCourtie/World Bank By IPCC: The IPCC includes the following in MSW: food waste.g. In solid waste management there is no ‘away’.

Often problematic to open new Waste regularly burned. program. and from residential areas. Transfer Waste volume a key consideration. Only a small innovation in fee collection. leachate collection to nearby aquifers. High fraction fleet and more mechanization. e. but the fee collection local and national governments. Increasing use of anaerobic digestion. Facilities often driven by per tonne. included participation reduces costs and increases proportion of budget is allocated toward in electricity or water bills. some small-scale composting projects at low. common. water bodies. Waste stream of organic material. disposal are higher than in low-income countries. Expenditures options available to waste planners (e.) Extended product responsibility common. and generally not successful Some incinerators are used. Recycling rates are still facilities are common and regulated. Service is limited Improved service and increased collection Collection rate greater than 90%.g. Aging collection—overall collection below 50%.and middle-income countries.. and gas collection and treatment settlements. environmental controls and some type of Little or no stack emissions monitoring. has a smaller portion of compostables than awareness of. leak detection. Materials are often Increasing attention towards long-term and imports of materials for recycling. compost lacking..g. of inerts and compostables impact rate varies between 50 to 80%. and recycle. Costs Collection costs represent 80 to 90% of Collection costs represent 50% to 80% Collection costs can represent less (see Annex E) the municipal solid waste management of the municipal solid waste management than 10% of the budget. but reuse and Some discussion of source reduction. still exists (e. Composting Rarely undertaken formally even though Large composting plants are often Becoming more popular at both backyard the waste stream has a high percentage unsuccessful due to contamination and and large-scale facilities. Informal recycling ‘middlemen’. Up front community system is inefficient. and operating costs (little waste separation). systems. golf courses and parks. but Organized education programs emphasize low per capita waste generation rates are rarely incorporated into an organized the three ‘R’s’ — reduce. About possible waste disposal option but costs three (or more) times the cost of landfilling prohibitive. energy recovery system. e. and high percentage of inerts. dumping is still common. Waste fees are regulated by some budget. Large price fluctuations. Incineration Not common. Recycling Although most recycling is through Informal sector still involved. Often receive medical waste. Large budget budget. . popularity. WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 5 TABLE 1 Comparison of Solid Waste Management Practices by Income Level (adapted from What a Waste 1999) Activity Low Income Middle Income High Income Source Reduction No organized programs. Waste fees are regulated by some allocations to intermediate waste local governments. Composting eligible easier. Recycling markets prices fluctuate considerably. Anaerobic digestion increasing in for CDM projects but is not widespread. Overall recycling rates higher than low are unregulated and include a number of and middle income. islands). but Prevalent in areas with high land costs because of high capital. Odor control critical. Open liners. Collection vehicles and transfer stations are common. reuse. Significant health landfills due to concerns of neighboring impacts on local residents and workers.g. operation costs. Air pollution control equipment Most incinerators have some form of the waste.g. landfill gas are more common. subsidies from OECD countries on behalf of equipment suppliers. High polluting with some environmental controls. on more mechanized collection fleets and recycling and composting). to high visibility areas. Material and ship-breaking. disposal.g. More the community/ neighborhood level are source segregation makes composting more sustainable. is not advanced and often by-passed. including hazardous goods such as e-waste are somewhat more regulated. and experiencing financial and operational and low availability of land (e. Post closure use of sites increasingly important. system design. residents. imported for recycling. Larger vehicle Compactor trucks and highly mechanized businesses willing to pay. Collection Sporadic and inefficient. some Recyclable material collection services and the informal sector and waste picking. local markets and for international markets relatively high. stations are slowly incorporated into the collection workers often a consideration in SWM system. Landfilling/ Low-technology sites usually open Some controlled and sanitary landfills Sanitary landfills with a combination of Dumping dumping of wastes. high technology sorting and processing high technology sorting and processing recycling rates tend to be high both for facilities. technical. Governments Governments include incineration as a regulate and monitor emissions. high moisture content in difficulties. the wealthy. more treatment facilities. Recycling markets markets. More producer responsibility & focus on product design. CDM projects for systems. aluminum can collection. Markets for.

Industry programs. institutional. however they are generally inefficient waste generated. In interested parties). For a compilation of the different definitions for quality. for example. and recently. and the sheer number of Municipal Solid Waste. Caribbean. some hedging opportunities for materials pricing. commercial. Waste Report was published. either mechanically or by MSW. practices in the decade since the original What a The majority of waste recycled in Buenos Aires. is shipped to China. ineffective (no facilities exist to differentiate containers by numbers. as delineated in is least able to afford price drops). and voluntary take-back programs are (C&D) waste. marketing of secondary-materials has myriad related concerns. emerged as a global business. Additionally. encompasses waste-worker) and deposit-return systems often residential. Many municipal recycling programs in be effectively managed without due consider.6 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Locally. two comprehensive the larger waste fractions. The volatility tutional. Waste management cannot markets. such as organics (food World Bank studies on India and China have been and horticultural waste) and paper are easier prepared (Hanrahan et al 2006 and Hoornweg et to manage. please refer to Box 2. however secondary materials marketing does not The average city’s municipal waste stream is have the same degree of sophistication as other made up of millions of separate waste items. There are Table 1.g. many cases. More emissions. The price is often city has their own site-specific situations. Although each country and making planning more difficult. problems still exist. pose dispro. Europe and North America were started with the ation for issues such as the city’s overall GHG recycling markets relatively close to source. landfilling contribute GHG emissions. are largely the data presented by these reports. Hybrid. dropping signifi- observations can be made across low-. syringes). cantly during economic downturns (when a city and high-income countries. and e-waste. items in a city’s waste stream origi- nated from other countries that have countless In the years that have passed since the original What factories and independent producers. Some of a Waste report was released. and construction and demolition ad hoc. The price paid per tonne of waste paper in New York City is often Despite progress in solid waste management based on what the purchase price is in China. industrial. OECD and PAHO have hazardous (e. middle-. meet industry and consumer resistance. Table 2 gives sources and types of emerging. municipal. This version of What a Waste includes such as voluntary plastic-type labeling. with their associated health growing global vagaries of secondary materials and nuisance issues. waste collection vehicles are large and municipalities are often forced to subsidize sources of emissions and both incineration and the disposal costs of these items. externalities. social. financial. as defined in this report. al 2005). but wastes such as multi-laminates. Uncol- lected waste can provide breeding areas and food In the last ten to twenty years an additional to potentially disease carrying vectors such as challenge has emerged for the waste manager: the insects and rodents. labor market. general predictive of economic trends. . commodities (largely due to issues of reliability. and environmental of secondary materials prices has increased. fundamental insti. released MSW data for Latin America and the portionately large problems. land use planning.

and institutional (ICI) wastes are often grouped together and usually represent more than 50% of MSW. packaging. slag. blood and body fluids). nursing homes. refineries. motor oil. landscaping. cardboard. Spoiled food wastes. metals. markets. and household hazardous wastes (e. general wastes from parks. ashes. construction and demolition and chemical plants (excluding specific materials. Same as commercial prisons. WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 7 TABLE 2 Source Typical Waste Generators Types of Solid Wastes Generators and Residential Single and multifamily dwellings Food wastes. pesticides) . plastics. vineyards. oil. Types of Solid Waste textiles. wood.g. radioactive waste from cancer therapies. dairies. Wood. glass. food fabrication. chemical plants. government buildings. phones. agricultural wastes feedlots. special wastes (e. TVs) Industrial Light and heavy manufacturing. hazardous wastes.. orchards. e-wastes (e. What a Waste 1999) bulky items. batteries.g. white goods. swabs. dirt. concrete.. parks. process wastes if the municipality does special wastes not oversee their collection) Commercial Stores. farms (e. scrap materials. road repair. waste containing mercury. paper..g. landscape and tree beaches. cardboard. gas tanks. aerosols. C&D waste is often treated separately: if well managed it can be disposed separately. Housekeeping wastes. The items below are usually considered MSW if the municipality oversees their collection and disposal. hospitals (non-medical waste). Process Heavy and light manufacturing. bricks. leather. cleaning agents). mineral off-specification products. sludge All of the above should be included as municipal solid waste. metals. construction sites. Industrial. yard wastes. steel. chemicals).. power plants. instruments. Industrial process wastes. office Paper. wood. coconut shells. other recreational areas. hazardous wastes. tiles renovation sites. computers. and wastewater treatment plants beaches. hazardous wastes (e. (adapted from glass. commercial. water trimmings. tires). Street sweepings. tailings extraction and processing Medical waste Hospitals. paints. airports Construction and Demolition New construction sites.. demolition of buildings Municipal Services Street cleaning. special wastes.g. restaurants. cultures. and other recreational areas.g. power wastes. ashes. plastics. hotels. hazardous wastes (sharps. clinics Infectious wastes (bandages. cotton stalks. coffee waste). food buildings wastes. pharmaceutical waste Agricultural Crops. consumer electronics. rice husks. e-wastes Institutional Schools. gloves.

while Africa and South Asia regions produce the least waste. and a more complete accounting of all wastes generated. This quantity is mainly influenced by waste generation in China. Per capita waste generation ranges from 0.2 to 1. and local climate. the greater the amount of solid waste produced. generated. country. Data to be recycled. the greater the amount of solid waste produced. global averages are broad Waste Generation by Region estimates only as rates vary considerably by region. the higher the the regional classification used in this report. ` OECD countries produce almost half of the world’s waste. from 0. Mumbai. the degree of industrialization. city. which makes up 70% of the regional total. as a region. when Africa is mentioned Collecting paper economic development and rate of urbanization.65 kg/capita/day. consumption of goods and services corre- expected to increase to approximately 2.0 kg per person per day. The annual waste generation in East Asia and the Pacific Region is approximately 270 million tonnes per year. we refer to Sub-Saharan Africa. Annex A. Map of Regions illustrates habits. Generally. are particularly lacking for Sub-Saharan Africa.2 billion spondingly increases. however. likely due to waste generated by the tourism industry.3 kg per person per day for Photo: Jeroo Bhada . and even within cities. However. The countries with the highest per capita rates are islands. public same city. Current global MSW generation levels are and as disposable incomes and living standards approximately 1. as can generation rates within the development. and are increase.44 to 4. Per capita waste generation is generally low in this region. ` The higher the income level and rate of urbanization. with an average of 0. much waste as their rural counterparts. from 1. Urban residents produce about twice as icant increase in per capita waste generation rates. but spans a wide range. This represents a signif. India Income level and urbanization are highly correlated Waste generation in sub-Saharan Africa is approxi- mately 62 million tonnes per year. Throughout the report.09 to 3. as does the amount of waste tonnes per year by 2025.3 billion tonnes per year. regional and country variations can be MSW generation rates are influenced by economic significant.42 kg per person per day in the next fifteen years. Waste generation varies as a function of affluence.8 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Waste Generation At a Glance: ` MSW generation levels are expected to double by 2025.

Per capita 44% waste generation is 0. Eight countries in this region have no available data on waste gener. approximately 70 million tonnes of (Hoornweg et al 2005).7 2.1 LAC 0. and an average of 1.1 OECD 1.09 3.45 kg/capita/day.7 kg per person per day with an average of 2.1 kg per person per day and In Eastern and Central Asia. and has an average of 1. The total amount of waste generated per year in this region is 160 million tonnes. The per capita values range from 1. per year is at least 93 million tonnes. waste is generated per year.2 Latin America and the Caribbean has the most Figure 1 illustrates global waste generation per comprehensive and consistent data (e.29 2. with per capita values ranging from 0.1 to 14 kg/capita/ day. with per capita values ranging from 0.10 3.1 kg per person per day.g. capita per day of waste generated within each region.1 0.2 SAR 0.7 kg per person per day. Similar AFR to the high per capita waste generation rates SAR 5% on islands in Africa.16 to 5.1 1.1 kg/capita/day. where OECD countries make up almost half Regional Evaluation of Solid Waste Management. PAHO’s region.95 kg/capita/day In South Asia. boundary for each region.1 kg/capita/day. indicating the lower boundary and upper ation ranges from 0.65 Capita by Region EAP 0.1 MENA 0. LAC 12% The OECD countries generate 572 million tonnes of solid waste per year.2 kg/capita/day. Current Waste Generation by Region 2005). by Region ECA In the Middle East and North Africa. solid waste 7% OECD generation is 63 million tonnes per year.12 to 5. Table 3 shows current waste generation per capita ation in the literature.29 to 2.11 14 2 1. WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 9 TABLE 3 Waste Generation Per Capita (kg/capita/day) Current Waste Region Lower Boundary Upper Boundary Average Generation Per AFR 0.44 4.16 5. The per capita waste gener. 1 waste generation rates are found in the islands of MENA Waste Generation 6% the Caribbean. by region.1 kg/capita/day.45 the region.1 to 3. as well as average kg per with an average of 1.95 (see Annex J) ECA 0. with an average of 0.7 1.0 0. the waste generated an average of 0.3 0. the largest per capita solid 5% FIG. Figure 1. EAP 21% .12 5.

865.3 0.1 by Income Level Upper Middle 0. the average per capita waste generation figure as the regions that produce the least waste. Upper middle: $3.229 1.1 437.566.124 1. Map income countries. Although the rates per capita relative to overall economic status total waste generation for lower middle income as they have large relatively poor rural populations countries is higher than that of upper middle that tend to dilute national figures.840 EAP 777 0.742.60 of the world’s waste.069. lower-middle. likely skewed as a result of of Income Distribution illustrates the global classi- China’s inclusion in the lower middle income fication for income used in this report.5 1.5 1. Per Capita Total (millions) (kg/capita/day) (tons/day) tion (millions) tion (millions) (kg/capita/day) (tons/day) AFR 260 0.644 4.45 192.2 1.119 1.545 379 257 1.392 MENA 162 1. Only the affluence of urban by Country Income Level 3 residents is important in projecting MSW rates.85 441. Annex B.726 or above. Lower middle: $876-3. as these classifications are country-wide.4 6. capita by income level.70 14 2.286 1.545 Total 2.77 567. indicating the lower .16 5.703 TABLE 5 Waste Generation Per Capita (kg/capita/day) Current Waste Income Level Generation Lower Boundary Upper Boundary Average Per Capita High 0.2 Lower Middle 0.1 254.410 1.79 Lower 0.725.11 5. while low income countries produce disproportionately high urban waste generation the least solid waste per capita.938 734 0.532.417 SAR 426 0.43 369.3 0.1 1.958 2. and low year 2025 as expected according to current trends income designations are somewhat inaccurate in population growth in each region.389 339 239 1. 10 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS TABLE 4 Current Available Data Projections for 2025 Waste Generation Projections for Urban Waste Generation Projected Population Projected Urban Waste Region Total Urban 2025 by Region Population Per Capita Total Total Popula. Table 4 shows estimates of waste generation for the The high.5 354.2 3.09 4.65 169. and in several countries average national affluence can be very different from average affluence of the Waste Generation urban populations.6 728.466-10. and Lower: $875 or less. amounts for the various income groups reflect the income level of the countries (see Figure 2).252 7.810 LCR 399 1.465. Urban Popula.320 OECD 729 2. 3 Countries are classified into four income levels according to World Bank Table 5 shows current waste generation per estimates of 2005 GNI per capita.545 681 466 1.285 1. while Africa and South Asia group.95 738.1 173. India and especially China have per capita.980 1.152 518 0. High-income countries produce the most waste For example. High: $10. upper-middle.379 ECA 227 1.031 842 2.

86 584. data for high-income countries are from OECD publications.5 kg/ Eastern countries from METAP data.010 2.547 1. showing decreasing average rates of Lower Middle per capita waste generation according to income level.879. and World Bank studies. World Development Indicators) was For further information on MSW generation rates used to calculate the total urban MSW generation.293 0. Where possible.618.3 2.705 .069. the total urban population for that year Africa (EGSSAA).19 3.4 6. please see Annex J.13 1.78 1.586 888 619 1.321 4.60 204.802 1. Lower FIG.080 1. This estimate is based on the USAID 2009 publication In cases where only per capita waste generation rates on Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in were available. Methodology for collecting current data: Upper Middle Income 19% MSW generation data by country were collected from official government publications. this report has available. most of the waste generated is in urban areas and only ology and year. (World Bank.982 1. reports by international agencies.287 1.272 Lower Middle Income 1.804 Upper Middle Income 572 1. Income High 29% Income 46% Table 6 shows estimates of waste generation for the year 2025 as expected according to current trends in population growth as determined by country income level.532.039 High Income 774 2.1 1. For example. by country. Waste Generation by Country Income boundary and upper boundary for each region. 2nd Ed.112 912 2. Where only total MSW generation numbers were reviewed journals. and some Middle available.6 987. a per capita amount of 0. MSW generation a small fraction comes from rural areas.647 4.649. assuming that that the data are relatively standardized by method. countries in Latin America and the For several African countries. When reviewing TABLE 6 Current Available Data Projections for 2025 (from Annex J) Waste Generation Urban Waste Generation Projected Population Projected Urban Waste Projections for 2025 Region Total Urban Population Per Capita Total Popula.590 Total 2. 2 Income as well as average kg per capita per day of 6% Waste Generation waste generated within each group according to by Income country income level.012.256 7.16 665. data were not readily Caribbean from PAHO studies. WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 11 Figure 2. and articles in peer. total urban population for that year was used used the same source for a group of countries so to calculate per capita waste generation. Hence. capita/day is assumed for urban areas for 2005. Figure 2 presents global waste generation by country per income level.637 676 0. Urban Per Capita by Income Total Total (millions) (kg/capita/ tion Population (kg/capita/ (tons/day) (tons/day) day) (millions) (millions) day) Lower Income 343 0.

Similar to ‘energy intensity’ urban residents also exhibit ‘waste intensity’. Urban Waste 8 illustrates the range of MSW based on Generation per capita waste generation. These values are supported country were made based on the level of expected by Table 6. 2005) World Development Indicators Solid Waste GDP Projections by Region IEA Annual Energy Outlook (2005) Generation Urban Population Projections United Nations World Urbanization Prospects (2007) TABLE 8 Income Level Average MSW Generation (kg/cap/day) Average MSW Generation Rates Low-Income 0. Projections for each country income level. Methodology for calculating 2025 projections: For further information on the sources used for Projections for urban municipal solid waste gener. appropriate. and waste generation practices were made where China or India.5 the values presented in this report. middle-.293 2. 3 1. it’s important GDP (high-.12 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS TABLE 7 Variable Data Source Sources for 2025 Projections of Current GDP (current US$.0 by Income Middle-Income 0. or low-income) and an average to keep in mind that values for waste generation at range of MSW generation based on that income a regional level can differ markedly because of the level. the 2025 projections please refer to Table 7.000 Urban Waste Generation 800 686 by Income Level 602 and Year 600 369 360 400 213 243 200 75 0 Urban Population (millions) 343 676 1. Modest adjustments for current experience influence from a single country. 1. ation in 2025 were made by factoring expected growth in population and GDP and estimated Table Figure 3.200 Waste Generated (millions tons/year) 956 FIG. such as the US.5 High-Income 1.1 – 4.080 573 619 774 912 Waste (kg/capita/year) 219 343 288 344 423 628 777 840 Country Income Group Lower Lower Middle Upper Middle High Income Income Income Income 2010 Projected 2025 .6 – 1.8 – 1.

collection within cities can also differ greatly. Curbside Pick-Up: Users leave their garbage directly outside their homes according to a garbage pick-up schedule set with the local authorities (secondary house-to- house collectors not typical). Contracted or Delegated Service: Businesses hire firms (or municipality with municipal facilities) who arrange collection schedules and charges with © iStockphoto. ` The amount of MSW collected varies widely by region and income level. ` Collection rates range from a low of 41% in low-income countries to a high of 98% in high-income countries. organic matter) and “dry” (recyclables). Canada 3.. into “wet” (food waste. Generators can individual house to collect garbage. Waste collection is the collection of solid waste from customers. a misnomer as waste is not actually separated Vancouver.” 2. Waste that is un-segregated could be to community bins that are placed at fixed separated into organic and recycling streams at points in a neighborhood or locality. 4. or hire third-party operators (or the municipality). The user be required to separate their waste at source.g. ‘Separation’ can be False Creek. WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 13 Waste Collection At a Glance: ` MSW collection is an important aspect in maintaining public health in cities around the world.com/brytta . The degree of separation can picked up by the municipality. Self Delivered: Generators deliver the waste directly to disposal sites or transfer stations. encourage collection efficiencies. and possibly a third stream of “waste. Municipal solid waste is collected in several ways: Collected MSW can be separated or mixed. Community Bins: Users bring their garbage or residue. House-to-House: Waste collectors visit each depending on local regulations. e. generally pays a fee for this service. 1. operators and may designate collection areas to institutional) to the point of treatment or disposal. vary over time and by city. MSW is a sorting facility. industrial commercial. Municipalities often license private point of production (residential. 5. or its designate. according to a set schedule.

Higher income countries tend pickers prior to collection. they are proportionally lower to residential waste even though this is usually less as other budget items increase. MSW is not separated or sorted before it is taken for The percent of MSW collected varies by national disposal. In high- be contaminated. reducing marketing possibilities. While total collection type of generator. Annex G provides data for containers without first being ‘mixed’ together. of more efficient containerization and purpose-built vehicles. yet secondary materials that can be supplied. Often. For further infor- than 50% of the total waste stream. collection The degree of source separation impacts the total services make up the bulk of a municipality’s SWM amount of material recycled and the quality of budget (as high as 80 to 90% in many cases). and at disposal sites. although collection costs can However. The degree and sophistication of waste picking Residential waste collection. during the collection to have higher collection efficiency although less of process. source separation and separate collection represent less than 10% of a municipality’s budget. and benefits from the collection of fees. efficient. the solid waste management budget goes towards collection. for example.000. especially in developing countries. please refer to Annex E. MSW collection in cities over 100. Singapore but rather is placed out for collection in separate waste is more dispersed. income countries. leading to recovered from mixed waste. because according to income level. and frequent. Often more attention is devoted budgets are higher. can add costs to the waste collection process. Recyclables collection rates tend to be much lower. In cities like Buenos tends to be more expensive to collect per tonne as Aires. but recyclables are removed by waste income and by region. In low-income countries. collection rates are usually higher than 90% on average and collection methods tend to be mecha- Collection programs need to be differentiated by nized.14 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Separate Photo: Cyrus Tata garbage containers. Waste generated mation on estimated solid waste management costs by the ICI sector tends to be collected better. tend to lower collection frequency and efficiency. waste pickers tend to remove recyclables . on the other hand. influences overall collection.

0% Annex K details MSW collection rates by country. WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 15 after the waste is placed curbside. particularly from residential generators. Waste Collection by Region iterative approach between collection crews and generators (usually households). 40% around 41%. or set afire. and ideally be charged for these directly. 100% 90% MSW Collection by Income 80% 70% The data show that the average waste collection 60% rates are directly related to income levels. Not sanctioned crews can be prevented from accessing surprisingly. waste FIG. 5 generators should be aware of the true costs of Waste Collection Rates by Region collection. South Asia and Africa strong links to the waste program and municipally are the lowest with 65% and 46% respectively. largely because 0% of culture and habituation. while high-income countries have 30% higher collection rates averaging 98%. Figure 4 20% 10% shows the average collection percentage by income. Regions with low-income countries tend waste. FIG. no more than weekly collection 10% is needed. If 90% waste is not set out for collection in closed containers 80% it can be disturbed by vermin such as dogs and rats. Therefore. Waste pickers can be formally or informally organized into groups or unions with varying degrees of autonomy and political voice. Waste Collection by Income waste. 4 Waste Collection Rates by Income Containerization is an important aspect for waste 100% collection. From a 20% health perspective. Good waste collection programming requires an ongoing Figure 5. OECD countries tend to have the the waste as informal waste pickers process the highest collection efficiency at 98%. Shanghai). OECD MENA LAC ECA EAP SAR AFR . 70% and it can become water-logged. 50% Low-income countries have low collection rates.g. Figure 4. However in some cities. three-times per day High Income Upper Middle Lower Middle Lower Income Income Income residential collection is offered (e. 60% 50% Frequency of collection is an important aspect 40% 30% readily under a municipality’s control. In some cities informal waste pickers have to have low collection rates. The resulting MSW Collection by Region scattered waste is more costly to collect: in some cases the value of recyclables are less than the Figure 5 shows MSW collection efficiency by extra costs associated with collecting the disturbed region.

brush) waste. economic development. appliances. plastics. leather. foil. Commercial and Institutional (ICI) solid waste planning purposes. Many the different types of waste and their sources. tins. wood. cardboard. paper beverage cups. climate. glass. broken glassware. especially with regard to collection: organics and inerts generally decrease in relative terms. e-waste. ` By region. newspapers. plastic. multi-laminates. Paper wrapping paper. A separate case-by-case review is organic. and energy sources. In most cities this material. bags. boxes. containers. For most MSW masonry. colored glass Metal Cans. railings. ash. waste is as 40% of the total waste stream. 16 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Waste Composition At a Glance: ` Waste composition is influenced by factors such as culture. is the first considered is ‘construction and demolition waste’ material to be recycled. cups Glass Bottles. ` Although waste composition is usually provided by weight. light bulbs. telephone books. while OECD countries have the least at 27%. bicycles Other Textiles. waste composition is categorized as cally identified. Table 9 describes waste also needs further local refinement. Plastic Bottles. lids. while increasing paper and plastic increases overall waste volumes. such as building rubble. process residues Paper scraps. packaging. However.’ recommended for specific cities. non-hazardous aerosol cans. other inert materials . grass. In the municipal solid waste stream. these six categories are usually sufficient for general Industrial. rubber. Some industrial process (C&D). shredded paper. however. magazines. EAP has the highest proportion of organic waste at 62%. C&D waste is not included unless specifi- this study. ` Low-income countries have the highest proportion of organic waste. Strictly speaking paper is organic but unless it is contaminated by food residue. In some cities this can represent as much management plans industrial by-products are not TABLE 9 Type Sources Types of Waste and Their Sources Organic Food scraps. with its An important component that needs to be relatively easier flow and quality control. bags. as a country’s affluence increases. composition impacts how often waste is collected and how it is disposed. yard (leaves. appliances (white goods). and ‘other. although total amount of organic waste is still highest in OECD countries. ` Paper. metals. waste volumes tend to be more important. paper. These categories can be further refined. concrete and waste requires specific treatment. industrial processes have specific wastes and by-products. paper is not classified as organic. and other inorganic materials make up the highest proportion of MSW in high- income countries. in this broadly classified into organic and inorganic. In report.

while the horticultural waste.000 tons Municipal Waste Genereated from Population Using Gas for household heating = 100. Figure 6. 6 Glass 2% Waste Composition Plastic in China 13% Organic Organic Others 65% 47% 41% Paper 9% Paper Metal 5% 1% Glass Plastic 2% 4% Municipal Waste Genereated from Population Using Coal for household heating = 49.500. cultural norms. paper. sewers. plastic.500. 5% 46% Figure 8 illustrates the differences between low.000 tons included in waste composition analyses. consumption of inorganic materials (such 10% of a city’s waste stream in dry locations). determining building materials (e.000. Figure 7. ash content (often from household heating). glass.000. steel). and climate. energy sources. approach for organic waste is particularly important. wood versus geographical location.g. which is usually a more expensive option.and high-income countries. In high-income countries. Waste Composition in China WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 17 Metal Others 2000: Population Using Coal 10% 2000: Population Using Gas 1% FIG. please refer to Annex I. Global Solid Waste Composition and in most cities waste from the ICI sector repre. low- and middle-income countries have a high percentage of organic matter in the urban waste stream.and Plastic 10% high-income countries: organics make up 64% of the MSW stream for low-income countries and paper only 5%. and as plastics. Global and metal fractions increase in the waste stream Solid Waste of middle. as organic waste may be diverted to water-borne sents the largest fraction of the waste collected. The type of energy source relative organic fraction decreases.000 tons Source: Hoornweg 2005 Total Municipal Waste Generation in 2000 = 150. such Geography influences waste composition by as level of economic development. ranging Other 18% FIG. Paper. and aluminum) increases. Generally. The IPCC uses its own classi- . Waste composition is influenced by many factors. As a country urbanizes and populations become amount of street sweepings (can be as much as wealthier. For data on Metal Composition 4% MSW composition in cities with a population of over Glass Organic 100. 7 from 40 to 85% of the total. whereas in high-income countries it is 28% Paper 17% and 31% respectively. an integrated since it is usually disposed at common facilities. however fication of MSW composition based on region (See household and general waste should be included Annex N).

in low-income countries or regions where energy for cooking. However. and 6%. Waste compo. Methodology Table 10 represents a compilation of composition values of current day data presented in Annex M. for the purposes a-g. respectively) and lowest in the compositions for MSW are assumed to be based South Asia Region (4% for paper and 1% for both on wet weight. the (32%. metal. Organic waste comprises the majority grid. ash. . sition data is generally available as percentages of the various waste streams. countries and authors’ projections. Total amount of organic a city. Waste Composition by Income and an ash residue is included. and lighting might not come Figure 7 shows the MSW composition for the entire from district heating systems or the electricity world in 2009. Annex snow. income level. which have the least (27%). but only 20% in the summer Low-income countries have an organic fraction of (UNEP/GRID-Arendal 2004). country. glass. The total waste composition figures by sition of MSW generated. countries. and metals found in the determining composition are not always provided MSW stream are the highest in OECD countries or standardized in the waste studies referenced. commonly divided Waste Composition by Region into the categories shown in Table 10. Humidity also influences waste composition J provides data for MSW projections for 2025 by by influencing moisture content. Mongolia. ‘other’ wastes are further disaggregated into MSW composition by region is shown in Figures 10 textiles. heating. Annex J provides data for MSW using waste generation figures from individual projections for 2025 by region. In some cases. followed by paper. uses natural gas for space heating. of the population that uses coal and another that given that the data sets are from various years. These are only approximate values. 7%. in waste composition in China between a section plastic. This is especially true income and by region were then aggregated. For example. the organic fraction tends to be highest in low-income countries and lowest Climate can also influence waste generation in in high-income countries. This report includes waste composition data that and specific reports for larger countries such as was available for 105 countries from various sources. ash makes up 60% of the MSW at a slower rate than the non-organic fraction. Each waste category was calculated glass and metals).18 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS in a location can have an impact on the compo. Precipitation is also 64% compared to 28% in high-income countries. For example. The ‘other’ category is clearly higher: 47% when coal is used. as un-containerized waste can waste composition by income as compared between absorb significant amounts of water from rain and current values and values projected for 2025. As Figures 8 a-d show. Estimates for waste composition Please see Annex M for further information on in 2025 are based on trends observed in OECD MSW composition data by country. important in waste composition. as opposed to 10% when natural gas is used for home heating. generated in the winter. OECD countries. The Although the definitions and methodologies for amount of paper. China and India. etc. other wastes. or region. rubber. Figure 6 shows the difference of MSW. and glass. The East Asia and the Pacific Region has the of standardization and simplification the ‘other’ highest fraction of organic waste (62%) compared to category in this report includes all of these wastes. particularly when The data presented in Figure 9 illustrates solid measured by mass. in Ulan waste tends to increase steadily as affluence increases Bator.

Waste Composition in Upper Middle-Income Countries d. Waste Composition in Low-Income Countries b. Waste Composition in Lower Middle-Income Countries Other FIG. WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 19 Figure 8. **Source: By author from global trends. . see Annex C on Data Availability. Waste Composition in High-Income Countries Other Other 13% 17% Metal Organic 3% 28% Glass 5% Metal Organic 6% 54% Plastic Glass 11% 7% Plastic Paper 11% 14% Paper 31% CURRENT ESTIMATES* TABLE 10 Source: Types of Waste Income Level Organic (%) Paper (%) Plastic (%) Glass (%) Metal (%) Other (%) Composition by Low Income 64 5 8 3 3 17 Income Level Lower Middle Income 59 9 12 3 2 15 Upper Middle Income 54 14 11 5 3 13 High Income 28 31 11 7 6 17 2025 ESTIMATES** Income Level Organic (%) Paper (%) Plastic (%) Glass (%) Metal (%) Other (%) Low Income 62 6 9 3 3 17 Lower Middle Income 55 10 13 4 3 15 Upper Middle Income 50 15 12 4 4 15 High Income 28 30 11 7 6 18 *Source year: varies. and Annex J. Waste Composition by Income a. 8 Other 17% 15% Waste Composition Metal by Income 2% Metal 3% Glass 3% Glass 3% Organic Organic Plastic 64% Plastic 59% 8% 12% Paper 5% Paper 9% c.

*Total annual waste volume in millions of tonnes .20 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Figure 9. Solid Waste Composition FIG. 9 CURRENT 2025 Solid Waste Other Composition Other Metal 17% Metal Low Income by Income 17% 3% Glass 3% Glass and Year 3% Organic 3% Organic Plastic 64% Plastic 62% 8% Paper 9% 5% Paper 6% 75 MT* 201 MT Other 15% Other Metal 15% Metal 2% Lower Middle 3% Glass Income Glass 3% 4% Plastic Organic Organic 12% 59% 55% Plastic 13% Paper 9% Paper 10% 369 MT 956 MT Other Other 15% Metal 3% 13% Metal Upper Middle 4% Glass Income 5% Glass 4% Organic Organic Plastic 54% 50% 11% Plastic 12% Paper 14% Paper 15% 243 MT 426 MT High Income Others Other 17% 18% Organic Organic 28% 28% Metal 6% Metal 6% Glass 7% Glass 7% Plastic 11% Plastic Paper 11% Paper 31% 30% 602 MT 686 MT Source: Current data vary by country.

Global Solid Waste Composition a. ECA Waste Composition d. WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 21 Figure 10. OECD Waste Composition Other 17% Organic Metal 27% 6% Glass 7% Plastic 11% Paper 32% . LAC Waste Composition Metal Other Other 3% 10% Metal 12% 2% Glass 3% Glass 4% Plastic 9% Plastic Organic 12% 54% Organic Paper 61% 14% Paper 16% f. EAP Waste Composition FIG. AFR Waste Composition b. MENA Waste Composition g. SAR Composition Other 19% Other Metal 37% 5% Organic Organic Glass 47 50% 7% Plastic Metal 8% 1% Paper Glass Paper 14% 1% Plastic 4% 7% e. 10 Other Other Waste Composition Metal 10% 13% 2% by Region Metal Glass 4% 3% Glass 4% Plastic 13% Organic Organic Plastic 57% 62% 13% Paper 10% Paper 9% c.

recyclable material is removed before the waste the disposal of MSW is assumed to be based on wet reaches the disposal site and is not included in weight. compostable and always provided or standardized in waste studies. in particular low-income and upper middle-income countries. disposal should likely be classified as controlled dumping. Although countries only give the percentage of waste that is the definitions and methodologies for calculating dumped or sent to a landfill. ` Although quantitative data is not readily available. given that the data is from 400 various years. Disposal Options Ghabawi landfill. The total waste disposal figures by income Figure 11. Jordan Photo: Perinaz Bhada-Tata . the methodology disposal methods data by country. Figure 11 shows current annual global MSW FIG. most low. Please refer to Annex H using waste generation figures for the individual for MSW disposal data for cities with populations country.22 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Waste Disposal At a Glance: ` Landfilling and thermal treatment of waste are the most common methods of MSW disposal in high-income countries. ` Several middle-income countries have poorly operated landfills. Waste disposal data are the most difficult to collect. For example. 150 100 Figures 12 and 13 illustrate the differences in 50 MSW disposal methods according to country 0 Landfill Recycled WTE Dump Compost Other income level. through various sources. 11 disposal for the entire world. the rest falls under waste disposal methods and quantities are not ‘other’ disposal. Methodology Many countries do not collect waste disposal data at the national level. Amman. Annex L presents MSW in cases where data is available. These are only Total MSW Disposed of Worldwide approximate values. commonly divided known or not consistent.000. some into the categories shown in Table 10. Amount Disposed (millions tons/year) 350 300 MSW Disposal by Income 250 200 Table 11 shows in further detail how MSW disposal varies according to country income level. Furthermore.and lower middle-income countries dispose of their waste in open dumps. Total MSW Disposed Worldwide over 100. Each waste disposal category was calculated waste disposal statistics. and by region were then aggregated. making comparisons across Waste disposal data was available for 87 countries income levels and regions difficult. In other cases. Waste disposal of how disposal is calculated and the definitions data sets are generally available as percentages of the used for each of the categories is often either not various waste disposal options.

WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 23 TABLE 11 High Income Upper Middle Income MSW Disposal Dumps 0. .9 Incineration 0.3 Recycled 129 Recycled 1.9 Incineration 122 Incineration 0.2 Recycled 0.2 Landfills 6.18 Other 21 Other 8.47 Dumps 27* Landfills 2.4 Low Income Lower Mid dle Income Dumps 0.97 Other 18 *This value is relatively high due to the inclusion of China.1 Compost 0.05 Dumps 44 by Income Landfills 250 Landfills 80 (million tonnes) Compost 66 Compost 1.12 Other 0.05 Compost 1.02 Recycled 2.05 Incineration 0.

3 Dumps Source: Hoornweg 2005 — regions (million Landfills 2. 24 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Table 12 contrasts the world’s richest (OECD) and ences in GHG emissions).05 Compost 66 Recycled 0.05 Incineration 120 Other 0. (these disparities are parallel to regional differ- FIG. Low-Income Countries Waste Disposal Figure 13. Populations in the two is almost exclusively dumped or sent to landfills. 13 Figure 12. Upper Middle-Income Countries Waste Disposal Low-Income Countries Waste Disposal Upper Middle-Income Countries Waste Disposal Income 0% Compost Dumps 1% Other Other 13% 6% Recycled 26% 1% Dumps 33% Income 1% Recycled 0% Compost 1% Landfills Landfills 59% 59% TABLE 12 AFR OECD MSW Disposal in two contrasting Dumps Source: Hoornweg 2005 2. Africa’s collected waste poorest (Africa) regions.6 Landfills 242 tonnes) Compost 0. regions are roughly equal. yet the OECD region while more than 60% of OECD’s waste is diverted produces about 100 times the waste of Africa from landfill.11 Other 20 . 12 FIG.14 Recycled 125 Incineration 0.

e. reuse. ``An assessment of GHG emissions and the role of toring and controls that will be implemented in MSW in the city’s overall urban metabolism. ``All municipal policies. . proposed waste mass flows proposed through each. what facilities are required. aims. ``Specifications on the proposed on-going moni. ``Outline of public consultations carried out during preparation of the plan and proposed in future. transportation. with key waste management facilities. ``The requirements for managing all non-MSW arisings. management: reduce. including data covering both recent years and projections over ``All the sources of finance and revenues associated the lifetime of the plan (usually 15-25 years). and Integrated solid waste management (ISWM) local (and increasingly global) ecosystems have in reflects the need to approach solid waste in a effective SWM. present and predicted. Components of an Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan An integrated Solid Waste Management plan should conjunction with facilities and practices and ways include the following sections: in which this information will be regularly reported. employees. who will BOX 3 ``Identify all proposed options (and combination of provide them and the related services. ``Financial assessment of the plan. environmental. such facilities and services will be paid for. ISWM is based on both a Box 3 for a detailed list describing the components high degree of professionalism on behalf of solid of an ISWM Plan. ISWM should be driven by clear comprehensive manner with careful selection and objectives and is based on the hierarchy of waste sustained application of appropriate technology. natural condi. These waste diversion license’ between the community and designated options are then followed by incineration and waste management authorities (most commonly landfill. ated with the proposed facilities and services. treat. ``The character and scale of the city. ``Outline of the detailed program to be used to site ment and disposal systems to be developed. ment. landfills. ``Data on all waste generation. such as moisture content and density (dry weight). treat. objectives. ``The proposed plan. with an immediate action plan detailing actions set out for the first ``Evaluation of the Best Practical Environmental 2-3 years. specifying the amount. compost plants. and how options) for waste collection. and initia. period of at least 5-10 years. and establishment of a ‘social a fourth ‘R’ for recovery. This with developing and operating the plan including should include data on MSW composition and estimated subsidy transfers and user fees. social. scale. over the lifetime of the plan (or facilities). or other disposal options.g. WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 25 Waste and the Environment Integrated Solid Waste Management waste managers. and disposal of the defined types and quan- tities of solid wastes (this must address options for ``The proposed implementation plan covering a all types of solid waste arising). Please refer to local government). transportation. and financial issues. and transfer stations. recycle — often adding working conditions. Option(s). integrating balanced assessments of all technical. and on the appreciation of the critical role that the community. and distribution of collection. climate. including anal- tions. development and distribution of ysis of both investment and recurrent costs associ- population. ``Associated institutional reforms and regulatory tives related to waste management. arrangements needed to support the plan. other characteristics.

and sustainability vermin. as solid waste public health reasons. a community 3 R’s Financial/Economic Technical increases influence or environmental regulations are and Performance tightened. the incidence of Anschütz 2001). Solid waste that is not properly collected efficiency to maximize benefits. diarrhea is twice as high and acute respiratory infections six times higher than in areas where There are three interdependent and intercon. and can thus of the system from a technical. effectiveness of the waste management is essential to maintaining public management system to safely remove the waste. or improperly disposed of waste can have a detri- elements. environmental. and scavenging animals. Elements Aspects Aspects (Policies and Impacts): encompass Generation and Separation Collection Environmental the regulatory.and water-borne diseases. Surveys social (cultural). tious medical and hazardous waste to be mixed which identifies three key system elements in ISWM: with MSW. All stakeholders should be identified and where practical involved in creating a y Local/Regulatory Authorities NGOs/CBOs Service Users Informal/Formal Sector ilit Donor Agencies SWM program.and further details on the interconnected dimensions middle-income countries. contamination of groundwater and surface water . institutional. optimize the use of resources. Lack of enforced regulations enables potentially infec- An alternative framework is provided by UN-HABITAT. In low. All stakeholders impact one or more of the elements. collection is frequent (UN-Habitat 2009). which is harmful to waste pickers and public health. and and disposed can be a breeding ground for insects. Adapted Adapted fromfrom van van de de Klundert Klundert and Anschütz and Anschütz 2001. e. 2001. Please refer to Box 4 for mental impact on the environment. environmental protection. national and global aspects. minimize costs. Environmental threats include management (UN-Habitat 2009). b na tai Elements (Process): include the technical aspects Sus of solid waste management. The elements need to Stakeholders be considered simultaneously when creating an SWM program in order to have an efficient and effective system. pass on air. and aspects.g.26 Integrated Sustainable Waste Management Framework BOX 4Stakeholders: include individuals or groups that have an interest or roles. ISWM Public Health: In most jurisdictions. financial. public is based on four principles: equity for all citizens health concerns have been the basis for solid to have access to waste management systems for waste management programs. health. Treatment and Disposal Recovery Socio-Cultural Specific aspects can be changeable. low-lying areas and land adjacent to slums. nected dimensions of ISWM. Measures and priorities are created based on these various local. MSW is often dumped in of ISWM. economic. and resource the environment. conducted by UN-Habitat show that in areas where and political perspective (van de Klundert and waste is not collected frequently. WASTE. As outlined by the Dutch NGO. which need to be addressed simultaneously when designing a Environmental Protection: Poorly collected solid waste management system: stakeholders. environmental and financial realities Transfer Political/Legal Institutional in which the waste management system operates.

composting) Landfill Incineration (with energy recovery) Waste Disposal Controlled Dump* Least preferred option *As a minimum. waste should be disposed at a “controlled dump. non-combustibles and by-passed waste needs to be landfilled. 14 Most preferred option Waste Hierarchy Reduce Reuse Waste Diversion Recycle Recover (digestion. the relative value of secondary materials is expected to increase. The world market for post consumer The waste management sector follows a generally scrap metal is estimated at 400 million tonnes accepted hierarchy. In recent years. particularly in low. — recovery. erations. occurs through an active. Recycling. impact increases. The hierarchy also encourages minimi- icant energy. For example. producing aluminum zation of GHG emissions. The earliest known usage of annually and around 175 million tonnes annually the ‘waste management hierarchy’ appears to be for paper and cardboard (UN-Habitat 2009). although usually informal. reuse. sector. Resource Management: MSW can represent a considerable potential resource. The hierarchy responds to financial. the global market for recyclables has increased Waste Disposal Options significantly. . as well as air pollution from burning cost of virgin materials and their environmental of waste that is not properly collected and disposed. recycle — but now a fourth R is frequently added income countries. than producing it from virgin materials. and where practical. As the FIG. year. Incineration requires a complimentary sanitary landfill.and middle. Producing new environmental.” which includes site selection. as bottom ash. compaction of waste. social and management consid- products with secondary materials can save signif. This Ontario’s Pollution Probe in the early 1970s. WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 27 by leachate. The represents a global value of at least $30 billion per hierarchy started as the ‘three Rs’ — reduce. See Figure 14 for the from recycled aluminum requires 95% less energy waste hierarchy. controlled access.

composting is less complex. recovery from e-waste. informal waste pickers Often associated with wastewater treatment at collection points and disposal sites recover facilities. which can be generation has a two-fold benefit in terms of relatively high if improperly burned. largely attributable to informal speaking. reduced quantities of disposed waste and the When using an anaerobic digestion process. In many organic waste is treated in an enclosed vessel. A reduction in waste the materials for sale or reuse. metal greenhouse gas emission reductions. Related forgiving. 1. Aerobic Composting and Anaerobic benefit is eliminating the emissions associated Digestion: Composting with windrows with the avoided waste management activities. e. minimi. The second 3. and reuse) seek to reduce the quantity the operation of material recovery facilities. Generally for recycling. of waste at generation points by redesigning Informal recycling by waste pickers will have products or changing patterns of production little GHG emissions. developing countries. First. or enclosed vessels is intended to be an aerobic (with oxygen) operation that avoids 2. except for processing and consumption. associated with electricity consumption for recycling factory zation. Recycling and Materials Recovery: The the formation of methane associated with key advantages of recycling and recovery are anaerobic conditions (without oxygen). In China. about 20% of discards are recovered generate heat and/or electricity. anaerobic digestion will generate a significant portion of discards. Waste Reduction: Waste or source reduction GHG emissions come from the carbon dioxide paper mill and paper initiatives (including prevention. more waste picking (Hoornweg et al 2005). 28 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Photo: Eric Miller/World Bank Maputo – Fapel. the emissions associated with material and product manufacture are avoided. and less costly than anaerobic .g. for methane that can either be flared or used to example. return of materials to the economy.

to sanitary streams with very high amounts of packaging landfilling (see Table 13).460 mtCO2e) of total incineration without energy recovery (or global greenhouse gas emissions. most of the GHG emissions associated due to costs and pollution. cardboard. the methane (about 50% of LFG) burned with or without energy recovery to reduce GHG 4. reduced surface and ground water monitoring. materials. minimization benefits. controlled landfilling. Open-burning with paper occur before it becomes MSW. Typically. Experience from many are a common final disposal site for waste and jurisdictions shows that composting source should be engineered and operated to protect separated organics significantly reduces the environment and public health. proper and physico-chemical siting. energy recovery) can reduce the volume of especially in developing countries. the need to includes significant embodied GHG emissions. to account for almost 5% (1. leachate volume through infrastructure and liner in place waste cover Sanitary Landfill Registration and placement/compaction Containment and leachate Flaring with or without of waste. measures treatment (often biological energy recovery for final top cover and closure. WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 29 digestion. no release engineering measures Engineered Landfill/ Registration and placement/compaction Containment and some level of Passive ventilation or flaring Controlled Landfill of waste. Solid waste also non-autogenic combustion. Encour- of waste is particularly discouraged due aging waste minimization through MSW programs to severe air pollution associated with low can therefore have significant up-stream GHG temperature combustion. Proper landfilling is often lacking. rather (LFG). These high usually progresses from open-dumping. can be recovered and back-end separation. TABLE 13 Operation and Engineering Measures Leachate Management Landfill Gas Management Landfill Semi-controlled Dumps Few controls. controlled volume reductions are seen only in waste dumping. Landfills and combusted. . surface water monitoring. plastics and horticultural waste. Incineration: Incineration of waste (with emissions. Landfill gas contamination of the finished compost. Landfilling disposed waste by up to 90%. produced from the anaerobic decompo- than processing mixed MSW with front-end or sition of organic matter. Landfill: The waste or residue from other of anaerobic digestion and can be collected processes should be sent to a disposal site. informal waste picking. leachate treatment. Recovering the energy value embedded in waste prior to final disposal Waste and Climate Change is considered preferable to direct landfilling — GHG emissions from MSW have emerged as a assuming pollution control requirements and major concern as post-consumer waste is estimated costs are adequately addressed. Methane is an intended by-product 5. paper. some directed placement Unrestricted contaminant None Classifications of waste. liner and leachate treatment) treatment in place and post-closure plan. uses daily cover material. For regularly add fuel) is not a preferred option example. uses daily cover. infrastructure. no release engineering measures Controlled Dump Registration and placement/compaction Unrestricted contaminant None of waste.

improving the efficiency of waste collection.1% South Africa 16 380 4. Jordan Photo: Perinaz Bhada-Tata .4% Selected Countries China 45 3.210 1. Union. emissions attributed to the municipal waste sector in 2010 (IPCC 2007). CH4. A transfer station in Amman. expanding recycling.4 The level of methane from Greenhouse gas emissions from waste management landfills varies by country. a by-product of the Greenhouse Gas Mitigation anaerobic decomposition is composed of methane Opportunities (typically about 50%) with the balance being Efforts to reduce emissions from the municipal carbon dioxide and other gases. 4 Wastewater management adds an equal amount of methane to the atmosphere. declined from 69 mtCO2e per year to 32 million Table 14 highlights some examples.1% Mexico 31 383 8. is the second most common are responsible for almost half of the methane greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide. which solid waste sector include generating less waste.3% *EPA 2006a.2% India 14 1.650 1. tCO2e per year from 1990 to 2007 (ISWA 2009). precipitation) and waste disposal practices. the rate of GHG emissions from waste has ature. Methane from landfills represents 12% of total has a Global Warming Potential 21 times greater global methane emissions (EPA 2006b). depending on waste can readily be reduced. Within the European composition. Organic biomass5 decomposes anaerobically in a sanitary landfill. N2O) (MtCO2e) Waste Disposa* (MtCO2e) to Total GHG Emissions GHG Emissions for Brazil 16 659 2. Methane. anaerobic digestion with combustion from fossil energy sources. **UNFCCC 2005. methane avoidance (aerobic 5 Organic biomass excludes organic waste such as plastics that are derived composting. Landfill gas. climatic conditions (ambient temper. 30 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS TABLE 14 Methane Emissions from % Methane from Disposal Landfill Methane Greenhouse Gas Emissions** Country Post-Consumer Municipal Sites Relative Emissions and Total (CO2. Landfills than carbon dioxide.

MRFs use a combination of manual and mechanical sorting options. Energy generated from would be directed to municipalities relative to the methane combustion can displace other fossil fuels waste generated. Landfill Capture the methane generated in disposal sites and flare or use as a renewable energy resource. An example of this economic either as a process energy resource or as electricity. However. Waste pickers could be used as a source of labor for manual sorting stages. natural gas). The fees collected and use of landfill gas). Opportunities by Recycling/Materials Recovery Materials recovery facility (MRF) to process source separated materials or mixed waste. Compost the organic material after digestion to produce a useful soil conditioner and avoid landfill disposal. As with recyclables source separated materials reduce the contamination associated with recovery from mixed waste. . countries. WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 31 TABLE 15 Waste Management Component Technology Options Technical GHG Waste Reduction Design of longer-lasting and reusable products. Mitigation Waste Collection Use of alternative. Composting/Anaerobic Digestion Institute composting programs ideally with source separated organics. mechanism is an excise tax on tires assessed Suitable technology options by waste management by most states in the US. waste generation and increase recycling. Use of compost in would pay for the waste management service public parks and other property owned by cities. such as product charges multi-unit households (such as apartment user can stimulate consumer behavior to reduce charges tied to quantity or volume). policy mechanism often better implemented by regional or national governments. Waste Management although source separated is the preferred option as the materials would have less Component contamination from other discards. reduced consumption. Product charges are a component are provided in Table 15. Consumers who separate encourage waste management practices that will recyclables pay a lower fee for waste disposal. non-fossil fuels (bio-fuel. of produced methane and capture. Consumers recycled post-consumer waste. Incineration/Waste-to-energy/ Use the combustible fraction of waste as a fuel either in a dedicated combustion facility Refuse–Derived Fuel (RDF) (incineration) with or without energy recovery or as RDF in a solid fuel boiler. reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Policy Recommendations ` Another pricing mechanism well suited to for Reducing GHG Emissions urban areas is user charges tied to quantity Governments have a range of policy options to of waste disposed. A product charge is a cost assessment added to the ` Preferential procurement policies and pricing price of a product and is tied to the cost of the to stimulate demand for products made with desired waste management system. treatment when they buy the product. it may options to reduce waste generation and increase not be practical in many areas in developing recycling and composting. Finished compost applied to soils is also an important method to reduce GHG emissions by reducing nitrogen requirements and associated GHG emissions. particularly in those where there are communal collection points associated with ` Pricing mechanisms. Practical approaches This pricing policy can work well in locations that could be applied in most cities include: where waste collection is from individual households so that waste quantities for disposal ` Public education to inform people about their can be readily monitored.

a significant level of waste is disposed directly through `` plastic local burning or thrown in waterways and low lying areas). yard. textiles. burning.and middle-income countries. and `` others (includes ceramics. inerts. Large variation in waste quantity and composition can be observed if `` Dates. inerts. The most accurate method measures the waste bulky wastes. Other-consumer products consist of . or open dumping takes place. and completeness. However. disposal site. ‘Others’ wastes should be differentiated into two the generation rate and composition are commonly categories: other-residue and other-consumer calculated using waste quantities arriving at the final products. thereby reducing the `` Undefined words or phrases quantities of waste delivered to final disposal sites. horticultural variations).and middle-income diverted prior to final disposal. removes a large fraction of recyclables. reliability of solid waste data is further compromised and wood wastes) by large seasonal variations (e.g. bones. yet growing waste indicated quantities associated with increasing GNP are not necessarily a true reflection of increased waste. in most low. methodologies.32 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS A Note on the Reliability of Solid Waste Data Solid waste data should be considered with a degree middle-income countries where the informal sector of caution due to global inconsistencies in definitions. data collection methodologies. they `` Estimates made without basis might be changes in the relative recoverable value of the secondary materials and improvements in overall `` Incomplete or inconsistent data (please see collection efficiency.g. compostables such as food. leather. household goods) generated at source before any recycling. This method of measurement does not dirt.e. the `` organics (i. Other-residue is made up of ash. or sources of data not the economic situation changes.and countries. and sweepings and is a significant component fully represent the waste stream because waste can be of the waste stream in low. especially in low. whether they were estimated or physically measured. Measuring waste quantities for final disposal is `` Inconsistent or omitted units practical for municipal purposes. Additionally. `` paper incomplete waste collection and disposal (e. rubber. Annexes C and D for further information on available data) Waste composition specifies the components of the waste stream as a percentage of the total mass or `` Information collected at a non-representative volume. ashes.and middle-income countries. composting. waste The reliability of the data is influenced by: collection rates are low and formal service does not extend to all communities. `` metal Rarely is it disclosed at what stage the waste gener- ation rates and composition were determined. seasonal rains and un-containerized waste. and a lack of weight scales at landfill sites to `` glass record waste quantities. The component categories used within moment this report are: In most low. coconut husks.

g. the can be estimated. or based on volume or mass. causing the true value to be generally combustible. unless clearly noted. It is the density of the waste stream. Waste densities and It is important to cite whether the percentages are moisture contents are needed to convert data to a given on a dry or wet basis. High-income countries usually Global City Indicators Program (GCIP). So far. Probably both mass and volume There are major efforts being done to correct measurements were used depending upon the data inconsistencies at the city level. to collect credible information on MSW. there country. Within this report. Data are also denoted by the letter are much higher per kilogram of waste and are “t” to denote the unit. The GCIP (please resources and support to complete a more accurate see Annex O) provides a practical means for cities waste characterization. Rarely is it indicated within a the higher the percentage of organic matter. tetrapaks and waste studies is the use of imperial units versus blister packaging). has been developed. all of the units are metric. Frequently the imperial ton and the more significant in high-income countries and metric tonne are interchanged when reporting differs from other-residue in that the volumes waste quantities. India Photo: Cyrus Tata . Bangalore. the waste study whether the percentage is on a wet higher the moisture content and often the higher or dry basis. percentages will differ markedly depending on from mass to volume and from wet to dry). Another major inconsistency among the various and multi-material packaging (e. This waste stream is much metric units. In response to this need. based in use mass as a basis since they have greater funding Toronto. Low.g. electronics. assumed that the composition was determined on a wet basis. household appliances. Usually moisture content.and middle-income countries would is no single standard or comprehensive system be more inclined to use volume since it does not to measure and monitor city performance and require sophisticated measuring equipment and urban quality of life.. WHAT A WASTE: A GLOBAL REVIEW OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 33 bulky wastes. because component common frame of reference for comparison (e. unknown.

A couple salvage old bricks from an area demolished for renovation in Saigon Photo: Tran Thi Hoa .

ANNEXES .

B.B.S.(UK) Mexico Cuba Mauritania Haiti 1 Cape Verde Belize Jamaica Mali Guatemala Honduras Senegal El Salvador Nicaragua The Gambia Burkina Guinea-Bissau Faso Guinea Costa Rica Panama R. de Venezuela and Tobago 2 City G . Lucia Herzegovina Serb Aruba Bonaire Curaçao St. Maarten(Neth) Czech Republic Uruguay Slovak Repu Antigua and Barbuda Chile U. Virgin Argentina Islands (US) Guadeloupe (Fr) Austria St. Vincent and San (Neth) (Neth) (Neth) the Grenadines Barbados Marino Montenegro Koso Grenada Mac Trinidad Vatican Albania R.36 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX A Map of Regions Greenland (Den) Iceland Faeroe Islands (Den) The Netherlands Isle of Man (UK) Canada Unite Ireland Kingdo Channel Islands (UK) Luxembourg Liechtenstein F Switzerland Andorra United States Spain Portugal Gibraltar (UK) Bermuda (UK) Morocco A The Bahamas Former Spanish Sahara Cayman Is. Kitts Hungary and Nevis Dominica Slovenia Croatia Martinique (Fr) Italy Bosnia and St. Martin(Fr) Poland Rico (US) St. de Guyana Sierra Leone Côte Ghana Venezuela Suriname d’Ivoire Liberia French Guiana (Fr) Colombia To Equatorial G São Tomé and Prí Ecuador Kiribati Samoa Peru Brazil French Polynesia (Fr) American Samoa (US) Bolivia Fiji Tonga Paraguay 1 Dominican Germany Republic Puerto St.

of Korea Turkey Tajikistan Monaco Greece Japan Cyprus Syrian Rep.R. Qatar Nepal of Egypt Saudi Arabia Bangladesh United Arab Emirates India Myanmar Oman Lao P.People’s Rep. ANNEX 37 IBRD 39177 MARCH 2012 Norway Sweden Finland Russian Federation Estonia Denmark Russian Latvia Fed. Niger N. Mariana Islands (US) Chad Sudan Eritrea Rep.of Burundi Seychelles Congo Solomon Tanzania Papua New Guinea Islands Comoros Indonesia Tuvalu Timor-Leste Angola Malawi Zambia Mayotte (Fr) Vanuatu Fiji Mozambique Zimbabwe Madagascar Mauritius Namibia Botswana New Réunion (Fr) Caledonia Australia (Fr) Swaziland d South Lesotho Africa Ukraine ublic New Zealand The world by region Romania bia ovo Bulgaria Classified according to Low.D.and middle-income economies FYR cedonia World Bank analytical East Asia and Pacific grouping Greece Europe and Central Asia High-income economies Latin America and the Caribbean OECD Middle East and North Africa Other South Asia Antarctica Sub-Saharan Africa No data . of Yemen Thailand Vietnam Guam (US) Cambodia Philippines Djibouti Federated States of Micronesia Benin Marshall Islands Nigeria Central Ethiopia Sri a Lanka African South Republic Sudan Brunei Darussalam Cameroon Malaysia Palau ogo Somalia Guinea Maldives Uganda íncipe Kenya Nauru Kiribati Congo Singapore Gabon Rwanda Dem.of Malta Lebanon Arab Islamic Rep. Dem. of Iran Afghanistan Israel Iraq Kuwait West Bank and Gaza Jordan Algeria Bahrain Pakistan Bhutan Libya Arab Rep. China Korea Tunisia Rep. Lithuania ed om Germany Poland Belarus Belgium Ukraine Moldova Kazakhstan Mongolia France Italy Romania Bulgaria Georgia Uzbekistan Kyrgyz 2 Armenia Azer- baijan Turkmenistan Rep.Rep.

Vincent and San (Neth) (Neth) (Neth) the Grenadines Barbados Marino Montenegro Koso Grenada Mac Trinidad Vatican Albania R. Martin(Fr) Polan Rico (US) St. Lucia Herzegovina Ser Aruba Bonaire Curaçao St.(UK) Mexico Cuba Mauritania Haiti 1 Cape Verde Belize Jamaica Mali Guatemala Honduras Senegal El Salvador Nicaragua The Gambia Burkina Guinea-Bissau Faso Guinea Costa Rica Panama R.38 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX B Map of Income Distribution Greenland (Den) Iceland Faeroe Islands (Den) The Netherlands Isle of Man (UK) Canada Unite Ireland Kingdo Channel Islands (UK) Luxembourg Liechtenstein F Switzerland Andorra United States Spain Portugal Gibraltar (UK) Bermuda (UK) Morocco A The Bahamas Former Spanish Sahara Cayman Is. Kitts Hungary and Nevis Dominica Slovenia Croatia Martinique (Fr) Italy Bosnia and St.B.S.B. Maarten(Neth) Czech Republic Uruguay Slovak Repu Antigua and Barbuda Chile U. de Guyana Sierra Leone Côte Ghana Venezuela Suriname d’Ivoire Liberia French Guiana (Fr) Colombia To Equatorial G São Tomé and Prí Ecuador Kiribati Samoa Peru Brazil French Polynesia (Fr) American Samoa (US) Bolivia Fiji Tonga Paraguay 1 Dominican Germany Republic Puerto St. de Venezuela and Tobago 2 City . Virgin Argentina Islands (US) Guadeloupe (Fr) Austria St.

of Korea Turkey Tajikistan Monaco Greece Japan Cyprus Syrian Rep. Qatar Nepal of Egypt Saudi Arabia Bangladesh United Arab Emirates India Myanmar Hong Kong SAR.905) High ($11. ANNEX 39 IBRD 39176 MARCH 2012 Norway Sweden Finland Russian Federation Estonia Denmark Russian Latvia Fed. Niger N. South Sudan is shown The world by income cedonia independent from Sudan.of Burundi Seychelles Congo Solomon Tanzania Papua New Guinea Islands Comoros Indonesia Tuvalu Timor-Leste Angola Malawi Zambia Mayotte (Fr) Vanuatu Fiji Mozambique Zimbabwe Madagascar Mauritius Namibia Botswana New Réunion (Fr) Caledonia Australia (Fr) Swaziland nd South Lesotho Africa Ukraine ublic New Zealand Romania rbia ovo Bulgaria FYR As of July 2011. and applies to the former united World Bank estimates of Sudan. However.People’s Rep.855) 2008 GNI per capita Upper middle ($3. Mariana Islands (US) Chad Sudan Eritrea Rep. of Yemen Thailand Vietnam Guam (US) a Cambodia Djibouti Philippines Federated States of Micronesia Benin Marshall Islands Nigeria Central Ethiopia Sri a Lanka African South Brunei Darussalam Republic Sudan Palau Cameroon Malaysia Togo Somalia Guinea Maldives Uganda íncipe Kenya Nauru Kiribati Congo Singapore Gabon Rwanda Dem. Lower middle ($976–$3.Rep.856–$11. of Iran Afghanistan Israel Iraq Kuwait West Bank and Gaza Jordan Algeria Bahrain Pakistan Bhutan Libya Arab Rep.906 or more) Antarctica No data .R. China Korea Tunisia Rep.D. China Oman Lao P. the Classified according to Low ($975 or less) Greece income data shown on this map is dated 2008. Dem. Lithuania ed om Germany Poland Belarus Belgium Ukraine Moldova Kazakhstan Mongolia France Italy Romania Bulgaria Georgia Uzbekistan Kyrgyz 2 Armenia Azer- baijan Turkmenistan Rep.of Malta Lebanon Arab Islamic Rep.

Year of Year of Composi. China LMI EAP x 2004 (2005) Colombia UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2005 PAHO (2005) x 2005 UNSD (2009) Comoros LI AFR x 2003 Payet (2003) x T 2003 Payet (2003) Congo. Parrot et al. LMI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) Costa Rica UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2005 UNSD (2009) Cote d'Ivoire2 LMI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) Croatia6 HIC ECA x 2008 Vego (2008) x T 2005 UNSD (2009) x 2006 UNSD (2009) x 2000 UNSD (2009) Cuba UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2005 UNSD (2009) x 2005 UNSD (2009) x 2005 UNSD (2009) . Dem. LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) Rep. Year of Country Region Source or Source Disposal Source Source Level eration Data tion Data Data tion Data Total Denmark Albania1 LMI ECA x 2006 Ministry of x T 2005 UNSD (2009) x 2005 UNSD (2009) Foreign Affairs METAP Algeria UMI MENA x 2002 METAP (2004) x U 2002 x 2002 METAP (2004) x 2002 METAP (2004) (2004) Andorra HIC OECD x 2007 UNSD (2009) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2005 UNSD (2009) Angola2 LMI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) Antigua and HIC LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009) Barbuda Argentina UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 UNSD (2009) Armenia LMI ECA x 2007 UNSD (2009) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009) Australia HIC OECD x 1999 OECD (2008) x 2003 OECD (2008) x 2005 OECD (2008) Austria HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2004 OECD (2008) x 2004 OECD (2008) Bahamas. Ngoc and Schnitzer Cambodia5 LI EAP x U 2000 x 2004 x 2000 (2005) (2005) (2009) Parrot et al.40 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX C Availability of MSW Data by Country Urban Income Gen. Kum et al. Cameroon LMI AFR x 2000 x 2001 x 2006 UNSD (2009) (2009) (2009) Canada HIC OECD x 1990 OECD (2008) x T 1996 UNSD (2009) x 2004 OECD (2008) x 2004 OECD (2008) Cape Verde2 LMI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) Central African LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) Republic2 Chad2 LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) Chile UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2006 UNSD (2009) x 1998 UNSD (2009) Hoornweg et al. The HIC LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) Bahrain3 HIC MENA x 2000 UNESCWA (2007) Bangladesh Department of Bangladesh4 LI SAR x 2004 x 2004 UNSD (2009) Environment (2004) Barbados HIC LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) Belarus Ministry Belarus Ministry of Natural of Natural Belarus UMI ECA x 2005 x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2005 x 2004 UNSD (2009) Resources Resources (2006) (2006) Belgium HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2003 OECD (2008) x 2003 OECD (2008) Belize LMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2005 UNSD (2009) x 2005 UNSD (2009) x 1997 UNSD (2009) Benin2 LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) x T 2000 UNSD (2009) x 2002 UNSD (2009) Bhutan LMI SAR x 2007 Phuntsho (2008) x 2008 Phuntsho (2008) Business News Bolivia LMI LCR x 2003 x 1999 UNSD (2009) Americas (2004) Kgathi and Botswana UMI AFR x 1998 Bolaane (2001) Brazil UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2006 UNSD (2009) Brunei Ngoc and Ngoc and Schnitzer HIC EAP x 2006 x 2006 Darussalam Schnitzer (2009) (2009) European Bulgaria LMI ECA x 2007 Environment x T 2002 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009) Agency (2008) Burkina Faso2 LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) Burundi2 LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) Kum et al. Rep.Year of Collec.2 Congo.

ANNEX 41

ANNEX C (continued)
Availability of MSW Data by Country

Urban
Income Gen- Year of Collec- Year of Year of Composi- Year of
Country Region Source or Source Disposal Source Source
Level eration Data tion Data Data tion Data
Total
European
Cyprus HIC ECA x 2007 Environment x 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2001 UNSD (2009)
Agency (2008)
Czech Republic HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2004 OECD (2008) x 1996 UNSD (2009)
Denmark HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2003 OECD (2008) x 2005 OECD (2008)
Dominica UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2005 UNSD (2009) x 2005 UNSD (2009)
Dominican
UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2000 UNSD (2009)
Republic
Ecuador3 LMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005)
METAP
Egypt, Arab Rep. LMI MENA x 2000 METAP (2004) x U 2000 x 2000 METAP (2004) x 2000 METAP (2004)
(2004)
El Salvador LMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005)
Eritrea2 LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009)
European
Estonia HIC ECA x 2007 Environment x T 2001 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009)
Agency (2008)
Tadesse et al.
Ethiopia7 LI AFR x 2006 x 1995
(2008)
Fiji UMI EAP x 1994 McIntyre (2005) x 1994 McIntyre (2005)
Finland HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2004 OECD (2008) x 2000 UNSD (2009)
France HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2005 OECD (2008) x 2005 OECD (2008)
Gabon2 UMI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009)
Gambia2 LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) x 2001 UNSD (2009)
Georgia UMI ECA x 2007 UNSD (2009) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009)
Germany HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2004 OECD (2008) x 2005 OECD (2008)
Asase et al. Asase et al. Asase et al.
Ghana LI AFR x 2008 x U 2008 x 2008 x 2008 Asase et al. (2009)
(2009) (2009) (2009)
Greece HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2003 OECD (2008) x 1997 UNSD (2009)
Grenada UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005)
Guatemala LMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2006 UNSD (2009)
Guinea LI AFR x 2007 UNSD (2009)
Guyana LMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2000 UNSD (2009)
Haiti LI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005)
Honduras LMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005)
Hong Kong,
HIC EAP x 2008 Shekdar (2009) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2008 Shekdar (2009)
China
Hungary HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2003 UNSD (2009) x 2003 OECD (2008) x 2005 OECD (2008)
Iceland HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2004 OECD (2008) x 2003 OECD (2008)
Hanrahan et al.
India LMI SAR x 2006 x 2004 UNSD (2009)
(2006)
Pasang et al. Ngoc and Schnitzer
Indonesia8 LMI EAP x 2008 Shekdar (2009) x U 2006 x 2000
(2007) (2009)
Iran, Islamic Damghani et al. Damghani et al.
LMI MENA x 2005 x 2005
Rep.9 (2008) (2008)
Iraq10 LMI MENA x 2005 UNESCWA (2007) x T 2005 UNSD (2009)
Ireland HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2005 UNSD (2009) x 2005 OECD (2008) x 2005 OECD (2008)
Israel Ministry of Israel Ministry of
Israel HIC MENA x 1996 the Environment x 1996 the Environment x 2005 UNSD (2009)
(2000) (2000)
Italy HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2005 OECD (2008) x 2005 OECD (2008)
Jamaica3 UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2007 UNSD (2009)
Japan HIC OECD x 2005 OECD (2008) x T 2003 UNSD (2009) x 2003 OECD (2008) x 2008 Shekdar (2009)
METAP
Jordan LMI MENA x 2001 METAP (2004) x U 2001 x 2001 METAP (2004) x 2001 METAP (2004)
(2004)
Kenya Ministry
Kenya LI AFR x 2002 of Environment
(2002)
Korea, South HIC OECD x 2005 OECD (2008) x T 2002 UNSD (2009) x 2004 OECD (2008) x 2005 OECD (2008)
Personal
Kuwait HIC MENA x 2009
communication

42 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS

ANNEX C (continued)
Availability of MSW Data by Country

Urban
Income Gen- Year of Collec- Year of Year of Composi- Year of
Country Region Source or Source Disposal Source Source
Level eration Data tion Data Data tion Data
Total
Ngoc and Schnitzer
Lao PDR LI EAP x 2008 Shekdar (2009) x 2000
(2009)
European Latvia Ministry Latvia Ministry
Latvia UMI ECA x 2007 Environment x T 1999 UNSD (2009) x 2003 of Environment x 2003 of Environment
Agency (2008) (2006) (2006)
METAP
Lebanon UMI MENA x 2000 METAP (2004) x U 2000 x 2000 METAP (2004) x 2000 METAP (2004)
(2004)
Lesotho 2
LMI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009)
Liberia11 LI AFR x 2004 UNEP (2007)
Lithuania
European
Ministry of
Lithuania UMI ECA x 2007 Environment x 2003
Environment
Agency (2008)
(2005)
Luxembourg HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2003 OECD (2008) x 2005 OECD (2008)
Macao, China HIC EAP x 2003 Jin et al. (2006) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009)
Hristovski et al.
Macedonia, FYR LMI ECA x 2006 x 1996 Macedonia (1996)
(2007)
Madagascar LI AFR x 2003 Payet (2003) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009)
Malawi2 LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009)
Saeed et al. Ngoc and Schnitzer
Malaysia12 UMI EAP x 2002 x 2000
(2009) (2009)
Maldives LMI SAR x 1998 UNEP (2002)
Samake et al.
Mali 13
LI AFR x 2007 x T x 1995 UNSD (2009)
(2009)
European
Malta HIC MENA x 2007 Environment x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009)
Agency (2008)
Marshall Islands LMI EAP x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009)
Mauritania2 LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009)
Mauritius UMI AFR x 2003 Payet (2003) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009)
Mexico UMI LCR x 2006 OECD (2008) x T x 2006 OECD (2008) x 2005 OECD (2008)
Monaco HIC OECD x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009)
Mongolia
Mongolia LI EAP x 2001 Ministry of
Nature (2001)
METAP
Morocco LMI MENA x 2002 METAP (2004) x T 2002 x 2002 METAP (2004) x 2000 UNSD (2009)
(2004)
Mozambique 14
LI AFR x 2007 Grest (2008) x 2007 Grest (2008)
Ngoc and Schnitzer
Myanmar UMI EAP x 2000 IPCC (2006) x 2000
(2009)
Namibia2 UMI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009)
Shekdar (2009) Alam et al.
Nepal LI SAR x 2008 x U 2003 x 2008 Shekdar (2009)
per cap (2008)
Netherlands HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2004 OECD (2008) x 2004 OECD (2008)
New Zealand HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x 1999 OECD (2008) x 1995 UNSD (2009)
Nicaragua3 LMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005)
Niger2 LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) x 2005 UNSD (2009) x 2005 UNSD (2009)
Nigeria LMI AFR x 2008 Solomon (2009) x 2008 Imam et al. (2008)
Norway HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2004 UNSD (2009) x 2004 OECD (2008) x 2005 OECD (2008)
Oman HIC MENA x 1997 Al-Yousfi
Batool and Batool and Nawaz
Pakistan15 LMI SAR x 2009 x 2009
Nawaz (2009) (2009)
Panama UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2000 UNSD (2009)
Paraguay LMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005)
Peru UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 UNSD (2009)
Ngoc and Schnitzer
Philippines LMI EAP x 2008 Shekdar (2009) x 2000
(2009)
European
Poland UMI ECA x 2007 Environment x 2005 OECD (2008) x 1990 UNSD (2009)
Agency (2008)
Portugal HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2005 OECD (2008) x 2001 OECD (2008)
Qatar HIC MENA x 2004 UNESCWA (2007)

ANNEX 43

ANNEX C (continued)
Availability of MSW Data by Country

Urban
Income Gen- Year of Collec- Year of Year of Composi- Year of
Country Region Source or Source Disposal Source Source
Level eration Data tion Data Data tion Data
Total
European
Romania UMI ECA x 2007 Environment x T 2002 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2006 Atudorei
Agency (2008)
Russian
UMI ECA x 2000 IPCC (2006)
Federation
Rwanda2 LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009)
Sao Tome and
LMI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009)
Principe2
Saudi Arabia HIC MENA x 1997 Al-Yousfi
Senegal2 LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) x T 2005 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009)
Denmark
Denmark
Ministry
Serbia1 LI ECA x 2006 Ministry of x T 2006 x 1999 UNSD (2009)
of Foreign
Foreign Affairs
Affairs
Seychelles UMI AFR x 2003 Payet (2003) x T 2003 Payet (2003)
Patriotic
Patriotic Patriotic Vanguard
Sierra Leone16 LI AFR x 2007 x U 2007 Vanguard x 2007
Vanguard (2007) (2007)
(2007)
Singapore Ngoc and Schnitzer
Singapore HIC EAP x 2008 x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2000
(2009) (2009)
Slovak Republic HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2005 OECD (2008) x 2002 OECD (2008)
Slovenia
European
Ministry of the
Slovenia HIC ECA x 2007 Environment x T 2002 UNSD (2009) x 2003
Environment
Agency (2008)
(2006)
Solomon Islands LMI EAP x 1994 McIntyre (2005) x 1994 McIntyre (2005)
City of Cape
South Africa17 UMI AFR x 2003
Town (2008)
Spain HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x 2004 OECD (2008) x 2002 OECD (2008)
Sri Lanka LMI SAR x 2003 Perera (2003) x 2008 Shekdar (2009)
St. Kitts and
UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005)
Nevis3
St. Lucia UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005)
St. Vincent and
UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2002 UNSD (2009)
the Grenadines
Sudan LMI AFR x 2000 IPCC (2006)
Suriname UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005)
Swaziland2 LMI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009)
Sweden HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2005 OECD (2008) x 2005 OECD (2008)
Switzerland HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2005 OECD (2008) x 2005 OECD (2008)
Syrian Arab METAP
LMI MENA x 2002 METAP (2004) x U 2002 x 2002 METAP (2004) x 2002 METAP (2004)
Republic (2004)
Tajikistan UMI ECA x 2001 CEROI (2001)
Kassim and Ali Kassim and
Tanzania LI AFR x 2005 x U 2005
(2006) Ali (2006)
Ngoc and Schnitzer
Thailand LMI EAP x 2008 Shekdar (2009) x 2000 UNSD (2009) x 2000
(2009)
Togo2 LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009)
Tonga LMI EAP x 1994 McIntyre (2005) x 1994 McIntyre (2005)
Trinidad and
HIC LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2003 UNSD (2009)
Tobago
METAP
Tunisia LMI MENA x 2000 METAP (2004) x U 2000 x 2000 METAP (2004) x 2000 METAP (2004)
(2004)
Turan et al. Turan et al.
Turkey LMI ECA x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2004 x 2004 x 2008 Turan et al. (2009)
(2009) (2009)
Turkmenistan
Ministry
Turkmenistan LMI ECA x 2000 of Nature
Protection
(2000)
Uganda18 LI AFR x 2004 Bingh (2004) x U 2002 Bingh (2004) x 2006 UNSD (2009) x 2002 Bingh (2004)
United Arab
HIC MENA x 2000 UNESCWA (2007)
Emirates3

5kg/cap/day 3 Generation value refers to domestic waste (household) only 4 Generation rates are for urban areas only 5 Collection and disposal values are for Pnom Penh only 6 Generation rate is for Dalmatia 7 Genearation value for Mekelle City 8 Collection value is for Jakarta only 9 Generation and composition values are for Tehran 10 Population values are for 1999. Year of Year of Composi. composition values are for Lusaka only .44 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX C (continued) Availability of MSW Data by Country Urban Income Gen. RB UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005) World Bank Ngoc and Schnitzer Vietnam LI EAP x 2004 x 2000 (2004) (2009) West Bank and METAP LMI MENA x 2001 METAP (2004) x U 2001 x 2001 METAP (2004) x 2001 METAP (2004) Gaza (2004) Environmental Zambia19 LI AFR x Council of x T 2005 UNSD (2009) Zambia (2004) Zimbabwe2 LI AFR x 2005 USAID (2009) x 2007 UNSD (2009) NOTES: 1 Year for generation data is assumed to be 2006 2 Generation rates calculated using a per capita rate of 0. Year of Country Region Source or Source Disposal Source Source Level eration Data tion Data Data tion Data Total United Kingdom HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2007 UNSD (2009) x 2005 OECD (2008) United States HIC OECD x 2006 OECD (2008) x T 2005 UNSD (2009) x 2005 OECD (2008) x 2005 OECD (2008) Uruguay UMI LCR x 2001 PAHO (2005) x T 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2001 PAHO (2005) x 2003 UNSD (2009) Vanuatu LI EAP x 1994 McIntyre (2005) x 1994 McIntyre (2005) Venezuela. the most recent year available 11 Composition values for Monrovia only 12 Generation values are for Kuala Lumpur 13 Generation and composition values are for Bamako 14 Generation and composition values are for Maputo 15 Generation and composition values are for Lahore 16 All values are for Freetown 17 Generation values are based on Cape Town per capita values 18 All values are for Kampala city only 19 Generation values are from 1996.Year of Collec.

Federated States of LMI EAP Moldova LMI ECA Montenegro UMI ECA Netherlands Antilles HIC OECD New Caledonia HIC OECD Northern Mariana Islands HIC OECD Palau LMI EAP Papua New Guinea LMI EAP Puerto Rico HIC OECD Samoa LMI EAP San Marino HIC OECD Somalia LI AFR Taiwan. Dem. ANNEX 45 ANNEX D Countries Excluded for Lack of Data Country Income level Region Afghanistan LI SAR American Samoa UMI EAP Aruba HIC OECD Azerbaijan LMI ECA Bermuda HIC OECD Bosnia and Herzegovina UMI ECA Cayman Islands HIC OECD Channel Islands HIC OECD Djibouti LMI MENA Equatorial Guinea HIC OECD Faeroe Islands HIC OECD French Polynesia HIC OECD Greenland HIC OECD Guam HIC OECD Guinea-Bissau LI AFR Isle of Man HIC OECD Kazakhstan UMI ECA Kiribati LMI EAP Korea. LI EAP Kosovo LMI ECA Kyrgyz Republic LI ECA Libya UMI MENA Liechtenstein HIC OECD Mayotte UMI AFR Micronesia. Republic of LI MENA . China HIC EAP Timor-Leste LMI EAP Ukraine LMI ECA Uzbekistan LI ECA Virgin Islands (US) HIC OECD Yemen. People’s Rep.

725 (GNI/capita) Waste Generation 0.5 billion High Income Countries10 $159. 5 Anaerobic digestion includes sale of energy from methane and excludes cost of residue sale and disposal. and transport to final disposal site for residential and non-residential waste. Carl Bar- tone and other industry and organizational colleagues.46 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX E Estimated Solid Waste Management Costs Estimated Solid Waste Management Costs by Disposal Method 1 Low Income Countries Lower Mid Inc Countries Upper Mid Inc Countries High Income Countries Income <$876 $876-3.000.7bil = 201.5 billion $7.5 billion $63.42 0.000.85Landfill ($85/ton + $65/ton)) + (0.000.75Landfill ($210/ton + $95/ton)) + 0. 2025: $84.25Incinerate($210/ton + $185/ton))) .5bil = 243.5bil = 426. 2025: $63.000. or external incentives. 2025: $7. transfer.5bil = 75.000 tonnes X 84% X ((0. excludes disposal costs of bottom and fly ash (non hazardous and hazardous). 4 Includes sale of any net energy.725 >$10.000 tonnes X 98% X ((0.000 tonnes X 80% X ($65/ton + $45/ton) 9 2010: $24.000.1 billion Upper Middle Income Countries 9 $24.1bil = 956. operation. maintenance.3 billion $220.000 tonnes X 98% X ((0. discussions with the World Bank’s Thematic Group on Solid Waste.7 billion Lower Middle Income Countries 8 $20.000 tonnes X 43% X ($30/ton + $15/ton).4 billion $375 billion Source: Authors’ calculations with input from What a Waste report (Hoornweg and Thomas 1999) and the World Bank Solid Waste Thematic Group and Carl Bartone.466-10. subsidies.1Incinerate ($65/ton + $100/ton))). 6 Cost of SWM (US$) = waste generated (tonnes) X percent of waste collected (%) X [cost of collection ($/ton) + cost of disposal ($/ton)] 7 2010: $1. 1 All values provided in the table are exclusive of any potential carbon finance.000.22 0.1 billion $84.2 Incinerate ($180/ton + $150/ton))).9Landfill ($65/ton + $50/ton)) + (0.29 0. and debt service. 2025: $220.2bil = 686.8Landfill ($180/ton + $75/ton)) + (0.2 billion Total Global Cost (US$) $205. Estimated Solid Waste Management Costs 2010 and 2025 Country Income Group 2010 Cost6 2025 Cost Low Income Countries 7 $1.78 (tonnes/capita/yr) Collection Efficiency 43% 68% 85% 98% (percent collected) Cost of Collection and Disposal (US$/tonne) Collection2 20-50 30-75 40-90 85-250 Sanitary Landfill 10-30 15-40 25-65 40-100 Open Dumping 2-8 3-10 NA NA Composting3 5-30 10-40 20-75 35-90 Waste -to-Energy NA 40-100 60-150 70-200 Incineration4 Anaerobic Digestion5 NA 20-80 50-100 65-150 NOTE: This is a compilation table from several World Bank documents. 3 Composting excludes sale of finished compost (which ranges from $0 to $100/ton). Costs included are for purchase (including land). 2 Collection includes pick up.000.000 tonnes X 55% X ($45/ton + $25/ton) 8 2010: $20.000.000 tonnes X 68% X ($50/ton +$30/ton).1bil = 369.000 X 92% X ((0.465 $3.3bil = 602.15Incinerate($85/ton +$145/ton))) 10 2010: $159. Costs associated with uncollected waste—more than half of all waste generated in low-income countries—are not included.

ANNEX 47

ANNEX F
MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100,000

Urban Generation Rate Total MSW Total Waste
City Year
Population (kg/capita/day) Generated (kg/day) (tons/day)
Africa
Benin
Parakou (UNSD 2009) 2002 148,450 0.59 87,671 88
Porto Novo (Achankeng 2003) 1993 0.50 —
Burkina Faso (UNSD 2009)
Ouagadougou 2002 876,200 0.79 692,635 693
Burundi (Achankeng 2003)
Bujumbura 1993 1.40 —
Cameroon (Achankeng 2003)
Douala 1993 0.70
Yaounde 1993 0.80
Congo, Rep. (Achankeng 2003)
Brazzaville 1993 0.60
Cote d’Ivoire (Achankeng 2003)
Abidjan 1993 1.00
Egypt (Achankeng 2003)
Cairo 1993 0.50
Gambia, The (Achankeng 2003)
Banjul 1993 0.30
Ghana
Accra (Achankeng 2003) 1993 0.40
Kumasi (Asase 2009) 2006 1,610,867 0.60 966,520 967
Guinea (UNSD 2009)
Conakry 2007 3,000,000 0.24 725,274 725
Madagascar (Achankeng 2003)
Antananarivo 1993 0.30
Mauritania (Achankeng 2003)
Nouakchott 1993 0.90
Morocco (Achankeng 2003)
Rabat 1993 0.60
Namibia (Achankeng 2003)
Windhoek 1993 0.70
Niger
Niamey (Achankeng 2003) 1993 1.00
Zinder (UNSD 2009) 2006 242,800a 0.29 69,430 69
Nigeria (Achankeng 2003)
Ibadan 1993 1.10
Lagos 1993 0.30
Rwanda (Achankeng 2003)
Kigali 1993 0.60
Senegal (Achankeng 2003)
Dakar 1993 0.70
Tanzania (Achankeng 2003)
Dar es Salaam 1993 1.00
Togo (Achankeng 2003)
Lome 1993 1.90
Tunisia (Achankeng 2003)
Tunis 1993 0.50
Uganda (Achankeng 2003)
Kampala 1993 6.00
Zambia (UNSD 2009)
Lusaka 2005 1,300,000 0.90 1,171,994 1,172
Zimbabwe (UNSD 2009)
Harare 2005 2,500,000 0.08 207,500 208

48 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS

ANNEX F (continued)
MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100,000

Urban Generation Rate Total MSW Total Waste
City Year
Population (kg/capita/day) Generated (kg/day) (tons/day)
East Asia & Pacific
China** (Hoornweg et al. 2005)
Anshan, Liaoning 2000 1,453,000 0.90 1,307,701 1,308
Baotou, Inner Mongolia 2000 1,319,000 0.90 1,187,101 1,187
Beijing, Beijing 2000 10,839,000 0.90 9,755,101 9,755
Benxi, Liaoning 2000 957,000 0.90 861,301 861
Changchun, Jilin 2000 3,093,000 0.90 2,783,701 2,784
Changde, Hunan 2000 1,374,000 0.90 1,236,600 1,237
Changsha, Hunan 2000 1,775,000 0.90 1,597,501 1,598
Changzhou, Jiangsu 2000 886,000 0.90 797,400 797
Chengdu, Sichuan 2000 3,294,000 0.90 2,964,600 2,965
Chifeng, Inner Mongolia 2000 1,087,000 0.90 978,301 978
Chongqing, Chongqing 2000 4,900,000 0.90 4,410,000 4,410
Dalian, Liaoning 2000 2,628,000 0.90 2,365,200 2,365
Daqing, Heilongjiang 2000 1,076,000 0.90 968,400 968
Datong, Shanxi 2000 1,165,000 0.90 1,048,501 1,049
Dongguan, Guangdong 2000 1,319,000 0.90 1,187,101 1,187
Fushun, Guangdong 2000 1,413,000 0.90 1,271,701 1,272
Fuxin, Liaoning 2000 785,000 0.90 706,501 707
Fuyu, Jilin 2000 1,025,000 0.90 922,501 923
Fuzhou, Fujian 2000 1,397,000 0.90 1,257,301 1,257
Guangzhou, Guangdong 2000 3,893,000 0.90 3,503,701 3,504
Guiyang, Guizhou 2000 2,533,000 0.90 2,279,701 2,280
Handan, Hebei 2000 1,996,000 0.90 1,796,400 1,796
Hangzhou, Zhejiang 2000 1,780,000 0.90 1,602,000 1,602
Harbin, Heilongjiang 2000 2,928,000 0.90 2,635,200 2,635
Hefei, Anhui 2000 1,242,000 0.90 1,117,800 1,118
Hengyang, Hunan 2000 799,000 0.90 719,101 719
Heze, Shandong 2000 1,600,000 0.90 1,440,000 1,440
Huaian, Jiangsu 2000 1,232,000 0.90 1,108,800 1,109
Huaibei, Anhui 2000 814,000 0.90 732,600 733
Huainan, Anhui 2000 1,354,000 0.90 1,218,600 1,219
Huhehaote, Inner Mongolia 2000 978,000 0.90 880,200 880
Hunjiang, Jilin 2000 772,000 0.90 694,800 695
Huzhou, Zhejiang 2000 1,077,000 0.90 969,301 969
Jiamusi, Heilongjiang 2000 874,000 0.90 786,600 787
Jiaxing, Zhejiang 2000 791,000 0.90 711,901 712
Jilin, Jilin 2000 1,435,000 0.90 1,291,501 1,292
Jinan, Shandong 2000 2,568,000 0.90 2,311,200 2,311
Jingmen, Hubei 2000 1,153,000 0.90 1,037,701 1,038
Jining, Inner Mongolia 2000 1,019,000 0.90 917,101 917
Jinzhou, Liaoning 2000 834,000 0.90 750,600 751
Jixi, Liaoning 2000 949,000 0.90 854,101 854
Kaifeng, Henan 2000 769,000 0.90 692,101 692
Kunming, Yunnan 2000 1,701,000 0.90 1,530,901 1,531
Lanzhou, Gansu 2000 1,730,000 0.90 1,557,000 1,557
Leshan, Sichuan 2000 1,137,000 0.90 1,023,301 1,023
Linqing, Shandong 2000 891,000 0.90 801,901 802
Linyi, Shandong 2000 2,498,000 0.90 2,248,200 2,248
Liuan, Anhui 2000 1,818,000 0.90 1,636,200 1,636
Liupanshui, Guizhou 2000 2,023,000 0.90 1,820,701 1,821
Luoyang, Henan 2000 1,451,000 0.90 1,305,901 1,306
Mianyang, Sichuan 2000 1,065,000 0.90 958,501 959
Mudanjiang, Heilongjiang 2000 801,000 0.90 720,901 721

ANNEX 49

ANNEX F (continued)
MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100,000

Urban Generation Rate Total MSW Total Waste
City Year
Population (kg/capita/day) Generated (kg/day) (tons/day)
Nanchang, Jiangxi 2000 1,722,000 0.90 1,549,800 1,550
Nanjing, Jiangsu 2000 2,740,000 0.90 2,466,000 2,466
Neijiang, Sichuan 2000 1,393,000 0.90 1,253,701 1,254
Ningbo, Zhejiang 2000 1,173,000 0.90 1,055,701 1,056
Pingxiang, Jiangxi 2000 1,502,000 0.90 1,351,800 1,352
Qingdao, Shandong 2000 2,316,000 0.90 2,084,400 2,084
Qiqihar, Heilongjiang 2000 1,435,000 0.90 1,291,501 1,292
Shanghai, Shanghai 2000 12,887,000 0.90 11,598,301 11,598
Shantou, Guangdong 2000 1,176,000 0.90 1,058,400 1,058
Shenyang, Liaoning 2000 4,828,000 0.90 4,345,200 4,345
Shenzhen, Guangdong 2000 1,131,000 0.90 1,017,901 1,018
Shijianzhuang, Hebei 2000 1,603,000 0.90 1,442,701 1,443
Suining, Sichuan 2000 1,428,000 0.90 1,285,200 1,285
Suqian, Jiangsu 2000 1,189,000 0.90 1,070,101 1,070
Suzhou, Jiangsu 2000 1,183,000 0.90 1,064,701 1,065
Taian, Shandong 2000 1,503,000 0.90 1,352,701 1,353
Taiyuan, Shanxi 2000 2,415,000 0.90 2,173,501 2,174
Tangshan, Hebei 2000 1,671,000 0.90 1,503,901 1,504
Tianjin, Tianjin 2000 9,156,000 0.90 8,240,400 8,240
Tianmen, Hubei 2000 1,779,000 0.90 1,601,101 1,601
Tianshui, Gansu 2000 1,187,000 0.90 1,068,301 1,068
Tongliao, Jilin 2000 785,000 0.90 706,501 707
Wanxian, Chongqing 2000 1,759,000 0.90 1,583,101 1,583
Weifang, Shandong 2000 1,287,000 0.90 1,158,301 1,158
Wenzhou, Zhejiang 2000 1,269,000 0.90 1,142,101 1,142
Wuhan, Hubei 2000 5,169,000 0.90 4,652,101 4,652
Wulumuqi, Xinjiang 2000 1,415,000 0.90 1,273,501 1,274
Wuxi, Jiangsu 2000 1,127,000 0.90 1,014,301 1,014
Xian, Shaanxi 2000 3,123,000 0.90 2,810,701 2,811
Xiangxiang, Hunan 2000 908,000 0.90 817,200 817
Xiantao, Hubei 2000 1,614,000 0.90 1,452,600 1,453
Xianyang, Shaanxi 2000 896,000 0.90 806,400 806
Xiaoshan, Zhejiang 2000 1,124,000 0.90 1,011,600 1,012
Xinghua, Jiangsu 2000 1,556,000 0.90 1,400,400 1,400
Xintai, Hebei 2000 1,325,000 0.90 1,192,501 1,193
Xinyi, Jiangsu 2000 973,000 0.90 875,701 876
Xinyu, Guangdong 2000 808,000 0.90 727,200 727
Xuanzhou, Anhui 2000 823,000 0.90 740,701 741
Xuzhou, Jiangsu 2000 1,636,000 0.90 1,472,400 1,472
Yancheng, Jiangsu 2000 1,562,000 0.90 1,405,800 1,406
Yichun, Jiangxi 2000 871,000 0.90 783,901 784
Yichun, Jilin 2000 904,000 0.90 813,600 814
Yixing, Jiangsu 2000 1,108,000 0.90 997,200 997
Yiyang, Hunan 2000 1,343,000 0.90 1,208,701 1,209
Yongzhou, Hunan 2000 1,097,000 0.90 987,301 987
Yueyang, Hunan 2000 1,213,000 0.90 1,091,701 1,092
Yulin, Guangxi 2000 1,558,000 0.90 1,402,200 1,402
Yuyao, Zhejiang 2000 848,000 0.90 763,200 763
Yuzhou, Henan 2000 1,173,000 0.90 1,055,701 1,056
Zaoyang, Hubei 2000 1,121,000 0.90 1,008,901 1,009
Zaozhuang, Shandong 2000 2,048,000 0.90 1,843,200 1,843
Zhangjiagang, Jiangsu 2000 886,000 0.90 797,400 797
Zhangjiakou, Hebei 2000 880,000 0.90 792,000 792
Zhanjiang, Guangdong 2000 1,368,000 0.90 1,231,200 1,231
Zhaodong, Heilongjiang 2000 851,000 0.90 765,901 766

918 2.352 45 Santa Cruz de la Sierra 2001 1.064 Latin America and the Caribbean (PAHO 2005) Argentina Area Metropolitana Buenos Aires 2001 12.49 232.352 255 Bolivia* Cochabamba 2001 717.729 Eastern Europe & Central Asia (UNSD 2009) Albania Tirana 2007 1.000 0.806. Sichuan 2000 1.000 0.14 210.182 Croatia Zagreb 2006 784.152 0.000 410 Aracatuba 2001 169.133 568 Tbilisi 2007 1.971 0.467 1.24 974.21 2.300.254 0.000 2.000 47 Alagoinhas 2001 130.968 1.975 Quezon City 2005 2.58 76.026 0.593 0.000 210 Americana 2001 182.30 102.728.064.000 2.000 76 Alvorada 2001 183.33 66.392.660 250 Neuquen 2001 202. Henan 2000 2.766 4.000 Urban Generation Rate Total MSW Total Waste City Year Population (kg/capita/day) Generated (kg/day) (tons/day) Zhengzhou.000 500 Anapolis 2001 288.072. Macao SAR (UNSD 2009) Macao 2007 525.000 95 Aracaju 2001 461.40 77.660.784 227 La Paz 2001 790.247 0.955 0.896 Philippines (UNSD 2009) Manila 2007 1.000 0.783 0.90 964.000 534 Barbados* Barbados 2001 268.230 0. Bahamas 2001 200.88 249.200 89 Aparaceida de Goiania 2001 336.911 3.128.62 180.29 35.67 534.746 0.532.534 0.90 1.000 0.800 965 China.181.00 4.932 793 Indonesia (UNSD 2009) Jakarta 2005 8.54 599.200 2.46 62.085 0.129 China.760 1.113.53 419.675.200 1. Shandong 2000 2.900 1.95 192.36 226.60 430.863 Zibo.569 1.000 1.926.44 47.714 3.904 975 Georgia Batumi 2007 303.000 125 .792 0.89 410.000 0.406 66 Potosi 2001 135.95 173.070.095 0.06 568.82 1.024 7.960 3.907 600 Sucre 2001 193.74 125.551 Bahia Blanca 2001 285.551.000 0.767 17.896.88 95.357 77 Tarija 2001 135.384 1.407.90 2.95 255.868 63 Brazil Abaetetuba 2001 119.392 0.000 35 Aguas Lindas de Goias 2001 105.863.518 0.827 0.51 792.16 14.000 180 Angra dos Reis 2001 119. Hong Kong SAR (UNSD 2009) Hong Kong 2007 6.33 45.900 174 Ananindeua 2001 393.000 0.88 7.061 14.353 0.392 192 Salta Capital 2001 472.549.876 0.040 232 Bahamas Nassau.549 Belarus Minsk 2007 1.018 1.47 17.677 420 Oruro 2001 201.974.783 0.544.00 605.75 89.27 500.962.216 430 El Alto 2001 629.50 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.000 102 Apucarana 2001 107.701 1.000 1.01 1.391 605 Kutaisi 2007 185.501 2.408 Zigong.56 3.

71 80.200 95 Barra Mansa 2001 170.39 440.79 200.05 340.400 125 Cachoeiro de Itapemirim 2001 174.126 0.202 Betim 2001 306.72 75.309 0.78 116.479 0.56 96.913 0.849 1.000 160 Camaragibe 2001 128.76 79.700 1.33 35.186.000 2.57 2.41 153.471 0.281 1.000 50 Barbacena 2001 114.369 0. ANNEX 51 ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.143 0.587.94 100.81 350.000 440 Belem 2001 1.200 72 Colatina 2001 112.000 130 Barreiras 2001 131.093 0.000 296 Canoas 2001 306.201.012 Belford Roxo 2001 434.03 180.600 107 Caxias do Sul 2001 360.496 0.808 0.949 1.756 0.73 296.03 128.000 390 Bauru 2001 316.466 0.75 496.000 1.200 232 Barretos 2001 103.39 72.600 282 Dourados 2001 164.285 1.614 1.76 106.83 95.42 50.700 166 Bage 2001 118.987 0.59 145.967 0.556.329 0.92 140.43 3.57 115.564 1.031 1.753 0.76 1.187 Diadema 2001 357.000 100 Caucaia 2001 250.238.000 200 Cascavel 2001 245.000 54 Catanduva 2001 105.01 130.000 340 Caruaru 2001 253.73 183.064 1.420 0.634 0.000 180 Camacari 2001 161.000 35 Criciuma 2001 170.400 496 Campos dos Goytacazes 2001 406.280.000 350 Belo Horizonte 2001 2.000 250 Cariacica 2001 324.419 0.977 0.064 0.974 0.87 158.000 185 Araraquara 2001 182.000 183 Caxias 2001 139.000 130 Campina Grande 2001 355.76 232.88 90.000 72 Contagem 2001 538.000 80 Colombo 2001 183.92 330.87 390.331 1.76 130.33 219.400 158 Araras 2001 104.017 1.000 330 Chapeco 2001 146.86 1.641 Campo Grande 2001 663.000 92 Curitiba 2001 1.000.49 150.000 115 Botucatu 2001 108.000 207 Carapicuiba 2001 344.17 125.35 480.315 0.000 96 Cubatao 2001 108.012.500 60 Araguari 2001 101.000 220 Boa Vista 2001 200.621 0.68 207.596 0.58 200.000 Cotia 2001 148.000 140 Cabo Frio 2001 126.000 153 Braganca Paulista 2001 125.200 79 Barueri 2001 208.800 3.646 0.300 1.675 0.568 0.69 1.85 92.702 1.53 59.000 Urban Generation Rate Total MSW Total Waste City Year Population (kg/capita/day) Generated (kg/day) (tons/day) Araguaina 2001 113.000 480 Campinas 2001 969.84 220.828 1.196 0.000 145 Castanhal 2001 134.000 90 Arapiraca 2001 186.711 0.49 165.847 0.000 219 .75 1.146 0.99 160.306 1.557 Cabo de Santo Agostinho 2001 152.526 1.000 1.99 185.767 0.40 54.000 75 Atibaia 2001 111.474 0.051.727 0.989 0.641.396 1.000 150 Blumenau 2001 261.000 200 Cachoeirinha 2001 107.49 72.73 250.500 129 Brasilia 2001 2.700 117 Crato 2001 104.879 1.79 281.700 1.

308 1.044 0.52 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.94 730.000 64 Garanhuns 2001 117.11 2.027.82 109.000 83 Guaratingueta 2001 104.796 0.27 250.72 78.559 0.27 435.900 1.738 0.000 206 Juazeiro do Norte 2001 212.53 83.21 300.366 0.279.007 1.000 730 Embu 2001 207.219 0.133 1.71 100.127 0.000 140 Itapecerica da Serra 2001 129.66 195.200 493 Juazeiro 2001 174.62 116.000 850 Hortolandia 2001 152.523 0.093.83 110.000 273 Francisco Morato 2001 133.94 200.131 1.58 60.685 0.50 62.000 227 Indaiatuba 2001 147.000 380 Maceio 2001 797.79 90.000 250 Macapa 2001 283.050.122 0.08 230.03 115.66 85.000 116 Itabuna 2001 196.046 0.64 290.61 90.400 90 Ipatinga 2001 212.000 720 Luziania 2001 141.000 450 Jacarei 2001 191.61 720.479 0.682 0.48 70.377 0.461 1.60 98.397 1.96 130.433 0.70 190.000 200 Itaborai 2001 187.100 127 Guarapuava 2001 155.000 120 Jaragua do Sul 2001 108.000 2.934 1.000 230 Juiz de For a 2001 456.79 850.141.567 1.000 Urban Generation Rate Total MSW Total Waste City Year Population (kg/capita/day) Generated (kg/day) (tons/day) Duque de Caxias 2001 775.759 1.104 1.543 0.600 261 Guarulhos 2001 1.200 330 Lages 2001 157.400 115 Jequie 2001 147.494 0.202 0.000 80 Lauro de Freitas 2001 113.000 64 Londrina 2001 447.315 1.949 1.15 493.402 1.663 0.496 0.59 64.95 273.64 159.556 0.000 83 Florianopolis 2001 342.000 80 Imperatriz 2001 230.72 1.200 62 Itapevi 2001 162.98 227.082 0.36 80.000 90 Limeira 2001 249.489 0.98 260.604 1.000 140 Feira de Santana 2001 480.375.800 0.58 83.75 195.500 160 Linhares 2001 112.51 80.000 195 Franca 2001 287.000 250 Itajai 2001 147.000 70 Joao Pessoa 2001 597.500 86 Itapetininga 2001 125.000 60 Guaruja 2001 264.629 0.000 1.717 0.072.700 1.100 109 Franco da Rocha 2001 108.000 435 Fortaleza 2001 2.62 95.543 0.065 1.18 206.000 190 Itu 2001 135.942 0.028 Joinville 2001 429.66 70.34 380.000 70 Ji-Parana 2001 106.77 450.000 95 Ibirite 2001 133.000 100 Macae 2001 132.02 330.749 1.56 750.800 751 Ferraz de Vasconcelos 2001 142.000 195 Goiania 2001 1.675 1.000 78 Jau 2001 112.95 140.67 140.000 110 Ilheus 2001 222.000 98 Itaquaquecetuba 2001 272.161 0.617 0.050 .737 0.55 127.000 130 Jaboatao dos Guararapes 2001 581.375 Foz do Iguacu 2001 258.280 Governador Valadares 2001 247.000 300 Gravatai 2001 232.050 0.32 1.89 250.500 291 Jundiai 2001 323.812 0.63 120.456 0.291 0.566 0.57 64.17 1.

059 0.74 125.904 1.582 0.900 281 Porto Algre 2001 1.241 0.078 0.63 250.200 60 Salvador 2001 2.400 193 Pouso Alegre 2001 106.593 0.63 208.339 1.000 250 Niteroi 2001 459.193 0.020 0.71 179.458 0.71 151.66 82.84 90.000 180 Petrolina 2001 218.72 1.97 240.058.56 141.000 90 Praia Grande 2001 193.97 1.500 2.712 1.342 0.000 100 Queimados 2001 121.841 0.000 125 Pinhais 2001 102.186 0.93 180.742 0.99 125.443.537 1.66 90.392 0.538 0.64 232.87 570.000 570 Palhoca 2001 102.000 240 Ribeirao Pires 2001 104.56 180.107 1.40 50.31 52.902 1.58 193.000 140 Petropolis 2001 286.98 1.776 0.237 0.599 0.947 1.55 2.51 462.04 215.83 141.20 7.180.355 0.98 284.653 0.700 233 Mogi Guacu 2001 124.87 101.627 0.300 675 Nossa Senhora do Socorro 2001 131.000 179 Ribeirao Preto 2001 504.05 385.000 81 Paranagua 2001 127.000 300 Pindamonhangaba 2001 126.000 25 Palmas 2001 137.55 82.340 Porto Velho 2001 334.985 0.552 0.000 140 Nova Iguacu 2001 920.700 240 Pocos de Caldas 2001 135.94 125.340.451 1.000 1.000 50 Passo Fundo 2001 168.000 83 Moji das Cruzes 2001 330.616 1.544 1.29 240.000 101 Ribeirao das Neves 2001 246.76 200.24 25.53 100.100 208 Montes Claros 2001 306.000 450 Rio Branco 2001 253.98 192.03 280.218 0.75 693.000 90 Ponta Grossa 2001 273.158 0.000 1.000 115 Marilia 2001 197.81 140.47 675.835 1.10 140.900 694 Novo Hamburgo 2001 236.590 0.026 0.60 101.000 200 Pelotas 2001 323.600 386 Osasco 2001 652.376.500 193 Maringa 2001 288.89 450.405.000 125 Parnamirim 2001 124.52 60.422.636.000 Urban Generation Rate Total MSW Total Waste City Year Population (kg/capita/day) Generated (kg/day) (tons/day) Mage 2001 205.661 0.228 0.732 0.05 300.059 Rio Grande 2001 186.000 1.000 215 Manaus 2001 1.500 152 Natal 2001 712.223 Nilopolis 2001 153.59 81.923 0.846 0.700 7.000 140 Parnaiba 2001 132.000 462 Mossoro 2001 213.830 1.158 0. ANNEX 53 ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.508 1.000 60 Piracicaba 2001 329.000 52 Maracanau 2001 179.64 115.180 Maraba 2001 168.900 181 Presidente Prudente 2001 189.352 0.000 284 Maua 2001 363.100 125 Rio de Janeiro 2001 5.360.38 50.000 240 Rio Verde 2001 116.857.64 140.227 0.300 101 Rondonopolis 2001 150.000 82 Paulista 2001 262.549 0.223.000 155 Olinda 2001 367.66 155.690 0.637 Santa Barbara D Oeste 2001 170.58 60.679 0.67 83.905 0.300 101 Patos de Minas 2001 123.500 65 Recife 2001 1.97 101.317 1.000 141 .376 Resende 2001 104.000 82 Sabara 2001 115.881 0.418 0.993 0.08 2.53 64.000 2.73 239.282 0.500 51 Nova Friburgo 2001 173.200 141 Rio Claro 2001 168.

59 73.000 140 Sao Leopoldo 2001 193.95 330.000 205 Sao Jose de Ribamar 2001 107.66 160.644 0.69 312.000 460 Sao Bernardo do Campo 2001 703.751 0.91 180.000 138 Sorocaba 2001 493.65 75.000 640 Santos 2001 417.700 359 Sete Lagoas 2001 184.855.200 42 Uberaba 2001 252.000 50 Sao Jose do Rio Preto 2001 358.92 455.58 125.36 160.434.058.165 0.500 163 Teixeira de Freitas 2001 107.468 0.998 0.313 1.304 1.O’Higgins.159 1.252 2.611 0.000 290 Sapucaia do Sul 2001 122.99 640.692 0.49 91.316 0.08 315.632 0.723 0.181 1.00 20.000 100 Sao Luis 2001 870.78 145.69 133.119 0.700 20.000 115 Timon 2001 129.40 52.871 0.177 0.547 0.54 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.67 162. Temuco 2001 245.000 200 Sao Carlos 2001 192.000 52 Teresina 2001 715.998 1.000 315 Vitoria da Conquista 2001 262.03 112.80 171.983 1.000 95 Teofilo Otoni 2001 129.000 160 Volta Redonda 2001 242.69 140.12 358.96 290.000 55 Santa Luzia 2001 184.327 235 .347 1.84 167.000 Urban Generation Rate Total MSW Total Waste City Year Population (kg/capita/day) Generated (kg/day) (tons/day) Santa Cruz do Sul 2001 107.023 255 Antofagasta.300 133 Sao Goncalo 2001 891.000 346 Vitoria de Santo Antao 2001 117.89 138.000 145 Sobral 2001 155.000 112 Varzea Grande 2001 215.000 125 Viamao 2001 227.00 161.900 1.000 160 Chile Antofagasta. Chillán 2001 161.81 566.70 620.83 115.402 0.081 0.000 160 Santa Rita 2001 115.609 1.475 171 Biobío.063 0.66 160.10 460.953 162 Biobío.700 567 Sao Caetano do Sul 2001 140.600 662 Sao Jose dos Pinhais 2001 204.844 0.856 Sao Vicente 2001 303.384 0.32 346.707 253 B.214 0. Antofagasta 2001 318.965 0.43 200.559 1.94 235.429 0.051 1.700 134 Santo Andre 2001 649.23 661.779 0.331 0.000 175 Vila Velha 2001 345. Talcahuano 2001 250.538 0.000 75 Santarem 2001 262.000 133 Taboao da Serra 2001 197.298 0.000 180 Suzano 2001 228.80 172.476 0.903 0. Concepción 2001 216.90 451.523 1.33 42.80 255.849 173 Biobío.18 205.000 100 Varginha 2001 108.52 100.000 167 Taubate 2001 244.600 452 Uruguaiana 2001 126.059 Teresopolis 2001 138.300 91 Santa Maria 2001 243.344 0. Calama 2001 138.88 95.000 455 Sumare 2001 196.961 90 Araucanía.48 1.55 391.424 0.47 50.000 740 Sao Paulo 2001 10.551 0.276 0.061 0.51 55. Rancagua 2001 214.690 0.77 175.03 367.85 740.000 391 Uberlandia 2001 501.953 1.79 100.000 330 Vitoria 2001 292.494 1.000 73 Serra 2001 321.348 0.65 89.000 312 Sao Jose 2001 173.58 133.028 0.900 368 Sao Jose dos Campos 2001 539.486 0.936 0.360 1.000 620 Sao Joao de Meriti 2001 449.51 133.03 252.

96 275. La Pintana 2001 190.268 0.95 193.721.55 298.020.980 743 Cartago 2001 129.400 66 Envigado 2001 145.72 275.000 0.520 153 Maicao 2001 115.44 56.000 1.000 0.454 275 Colombia Armenia 2001 293.559 0.390 1.069 193 Santiago.021 Bello 2001 353.04 120.60 186. Curicó 2001 120.72 4.66 154.940 170 Barrancabermeja 2001 183.890 254 Itagüí 2001 246.58 232.31 44. La Serena 2001 160.02 119.930 69 Cali 2001 2.000 0.600 254 Palmira 2001 234.500 150 Buga 2001 113.890 213 Pereira 2001 401.674 1.000 0.000 69 Manizales 2001 345.679 Cartagena 2001 854.000 0.546.000 0. Punta Arenas 2001 120.909.95 152.950 45 Florencia 2001 116.49 172.81 1.276.00 120.370 1.000 0.640 121 Floridablanca 2001 232.540 132 Valparaíso.231 0.580 233 Popayán 2001 206.224 169 Santiago.90 146.874 0.040 275 Sincelejo 2001 234.000 0. Coquimbo 2001 163.000 0.000 0.475 145 Los Lagos.732 147 Coquimbo.62 152.61 68. Puerto Montt 2001 175.141 152 Los Lagos.000 0. Providencia 2001 120.722 Bucaramanga 2001 543.000 0.88 250.000 0.000 1.00 175.893 328 Tarapacá.874 1.938 176 Los Lagos.220 1.42 59.87 742.000 0.460 148 Santiago.50 116.148 0.650 299 Buenaventura 2001 230.000 116 Girardot 2001 117. Osorno 2001 145.312 1.65 149.000 0.71 131.21 179.63 253.72 248.01 472.931 0.137 472 Santiago.61 212.000 0.00 145.340 119 Soacha 2001 285.346 179 Santiago.036 0.00 365.020 138 Santa Marta 2001 382.000 186 .60 69.800 1.63 327. Valdivia 2001 140.035 59 Magallanes.38 43.299 1.970 173 Bogotá 2001 6.67 138.674 366 Santiago.000 0.085 0.00 275.600 154 Neiva 2001 317.000 0. Santiago 2001 200.000 0.000 0.000 0.80 253.00 148.982 1. Viña del Mar 2001 286. Maipú 2001 468. Valparaíso 2001 275.58 169.000 0. Talca 2001 203.400 248 Medellín 2001 1.46 296.000 0.68 129.77 1.938 1.546 Montería 2001 256.60 153. Cerro Navia 2001 148.000 0. La Florida 2001 365.181.000 Urban Generation Rate Total MSW Total Waste City Year Population (kg/capita/day) Generated (kg/day) (tons/day) Coquimbo.760 57 Cúcuta 2001 644.792 1.000 0.240 296 Dosquebradas 2001 166.000 0.440 154 Pasto 2001 349.40 169.000 0.475 1.51 119.679.000 0.982 276 Valparaíso.000 0.80 96.340 119 Ibagué 2001 403.558. ANNEX 55 ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.000 0.299 120 Maule. Arica 2001 185.80 1.40 66.800 251 Sogamoso 2001 114. Recoleta 2001 148.320 43 Soledad 2001 310.760 4.000 0.699 97 Maule.258 129 Santiago.800 110 Barranquilla 2001 1.290 1.60 109.

623 298 Guatemala 2001 2.50 154.581 0.442 124 Holguín 2001 268.520 202 Dessalines 2001 167.640 Guantánamo 2001 222.203 281 San José 2001 326.781 250 Croix des Bouquets 2001 143.50 226.80 293.000 117 Quetzaltenango 2001 122.200 0.639.63 105.75 1.51 58.286 0.60 84.897 0.20 297.770 1.637 85 Carrefour 2001 416.300 236 Villavicencio 2001 289.57 162.345 0.217 0.53 275.800 128 Santiago de Cuba 2001 452.85 199.526 200 Desamparados 2001 203.763 49 Cienfuegos 2001 154.388 293 San Pedro Carchá 2001 130.551 0.381 0.662 68 Camagüey 2001 308.019 1.203 0.000 0.81 388.30 43.078 0.824 106 Grenada Grenada 2001 95.750 118 Tunja 2001 112.85 110.935 0.400 275 Haiti Cap-Haïtien 2001 141.735 0.56 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.51 147.480 88 Valledupar 2001 278.90 117.358 0.307 0.50 134.975 0.47 67.254 105 San Salvador .836 96 San Miguel.65 130.218 81 Guatemala Antigua Guatemala 2001 248.85 81.480 388 Santa Ana.177 0.141 43 Delmas 2001 335.60 249.843 0.846 0.000 0.79 88.Apopa 2001 139.220 0.72 1.118 0.90 109.541.599 0.60 79.58 127.866 0.157 0.600 111 Guyana Georgetown 2001 180. San Salvador 2001 479.41 48.85 236.000 1.414.44 48.000 0. San Miguel 2001 172.548 0.664 1.632 0.833 59 San Salvador .384 1.274 130 El Salvador La Libertad .247 97 Sancti Spíritus 2001 109.280 50 .941 110 San Benito 2001 366.415 Jutiapa 2001 130.000 Urban Generation Rate Total MSW Total Waste City Year Population (kg/capita/day) Generated (kg/day) (tons/day) Tuluá 2001 157.60 201.301 0.54 75.38 281.737 0.348 63 Santa Clara 2001 220.421 0.859 68 Ecuador* Quito 2001 1.186.440 48 Matanzas 2001 133.44 67.326 Santo Domingo de los Colorados 2001 200.974 1.30 50.70 95.288 0.82 141.906 80 Pinar del Río 2001 162.154 226 Tunas 2001 144.422 134 Manzanillo 2001 110.613 163 San Salvador.909 0.803 0.206 141 San Salvador .605 0.061 0.75 116.75 117.61 105.58 63.Ilopango.56 124.95 2.02 332.000 0.390 147 Costa Rica Alajuela 2001 234.173 116 Ciudad de La Habana 2001 2. Santa Ana 2001 167.000 0.Nueva San Salvador 2001 136.802 0.325.144 154 Ciego de Ávila 2001 118. 2001 115.60 97.493 75 San Salvador .Soyapango 2001 285.841.585 333 Cuba Bayamo 2001 154.502 2.Mejicanos 2001 172.832 0.

Guanajuato 2001 130.504 0.377 142 Retirement(Westmoreland. Othon P. Campeche 2001 219.845 0.80 380.974 63 Boca del Río.276 45 Port-au-Prince 2001 1.215 0.739 108 Cuauhtemoc. St.Thomas) Southern(Manchester.94 159.019 104 Aguascalientes.870 0.354 316 Culiacán. Campeche 2001 169.733 125 Campeche.784 0. México 2001 232.190 331 Mexico Acapulco.051 660 Saint Marc 2001 164.474 0.402 0.030 186 Coatzacoalcos.90 677. 2001 1.60 660.Cath.63 79. Benito Juárez.102 83 Jean Rabel 2001 121.190 1. Colima 2001 131.100.381 37 Honduras Choloma 2001 126.30 45.414 0.94 364. Quintana Roo 2001 209.And.241 0.281 0.458 Clarendon and St.27 197.340 110 Apatzingan. Blanco.085 0.854 46 Pétion Ville 2001 143.54 67.065 0.366 36 Léogâne 2001 105.535 334 Jamaica* North Eastern Wasteshed( 2001 357.875 0.89 142. Quintana Roo 2001 444.25 26.673 0.672 0.776 1.268 0.94 196.035 69 .948 117 Carmen.048 124 Comitán de Domínguez. Morelos 2001 155.867 0.838 108 Dolores Hidalgo.834 80 San Pedro Sula 2001 483. Veracruz 2001 178.95 124.785 686 Acuña.178 418 Cárdenas.94 252. Tabasco 2001 219.374 0. ANNEX 57 ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.155 1. Guerrero 2001 197.271 0.458. México 2001 475. St.000 Urban Generation Rate Total MSW Total Waste City Year Population (kg/capita/day) Generated (kg/day) (tons/day) Gonaïves 2001 138. Puebla 2001 117.40 45.452 26 Les Cayes 2001 152.010 0.Elizabeth) 2001 331.80 522.731 365 Chalco.94 418.25 31.001 207 Cancún.92 316.191 0. Chiapas 2001 107.806 0.015 252 Colima.70 88.92 107.Ann) Portmore 2001 159.017 0.363 1.221 0.398 348 Atizapan de Zaragoza.481 88 Distrito Central 2001 819. Chihuahua 2001 125.275 0.53 57.30 49.544 42 Jacmel 2001 138. Guanajuato 2001 388.245 0.603 0. Veracruz 2001 268.30 37.60 107.896 197 Chihuahua.460 49 Saint Michel 2001 124.480 0. St.35 44. Veracruz 2001 135.85 110.James) Riverton ( Kgn.547 280 Chetumal.97 658.580 659 Chilpancingo.358 31 Petite Rivière de l’Artibonite 2001 126.056 67 Cuautla.704 58 Apodaca.94 685.265 1. Tamaulipas 2001 130.00 452.868 0. Nuevo León 2001 297.250 677 Delicias. Michoacán 2001 108. St. Morelos 2001 342. Sinaloa 2001 755.89 104.012 0.458.433 0.724 453 Hanover.266 44 Port de Paix 2001 113.105 0.94 186.929 0.60 86.00 357.53 69.265 357 Portland.30 41.371 522 Altamira.683 0. Coahuila 2001 117.937 160 Celaya.00 331.384 0.311 197 Cuernavaca. 2001 452.724 1.546 381 Atlixco.00 1. Guerrero 2001 728.69 333.956 1.466 0.311 549 La Ceiba 2001 126.60 83. Chihuahua 2001 676.30 36.974 0.53 116.721 0.748 0.67 549.53 62. Chihuahua 2001 117.452 0.425 0.071 86 Petit Goâve 2001 125.94 207.160 0.92 124.995 56 Córdoba.Mary and St.20 279.52 55.155 1. Aguascalientes 2001 656.17 348.Trelawny & St.

747 0.89 556.070 78 Monclova.94 122.621 199 Piedras Negras. Oaxaca 2001 259. Chihuahua 2001 1. México 2001 861.93 116. Sinaloa 2001 362.174 103 Guanajuato.38 1.98 117.591 284 Lagos de Moreno. Yucatán 2001 714.00 362.13 117.71 135. Durango 2001 276.94 132.699 1.343 0.998 1.523 0. Guerrero 2001 125.394 542 Reynosa.112.13 224.42 283.776 1.54 57.955 69 Lázaro Cárdenas.19 1. Tamaulipas 2001 317.921 133 Guasave.636 1.94 336. Michoacán 2001 174. Tamaulipas 2001 438.941 0.424 0.458 0.95 423.962 0. Michoacán 2001 628.390 0.85 96. Cajeme.543 La Paz.98 190.386 336 Orizaba.818 238 Obregón.922 0.574 123 Poza Rica. Michoacán 2001 106.649 97 Lerma.400 223 Mexicali.025 355 Fresnillo.615.890 Minatitlán. Coahuila 2001 194.121 1.94 733.407 419 Mazatlán.909 1. Jalisco 2001 128.98 419.470 615 Hidalgo del Parral. Zacatecas 2001 183.99 705.018 11. Durango 2001 113.965 161 León.245 461 Ecatepec. Sonora 2001 619.94 263. Sonora 2001 357.047 0.256 117 Pachuca. Guanajuato 2001 445.655.279 467 Oaxaca.269 Lerdo.18 289.085 0. Ahome.894 Puerto Vallarta.967 60 Manzanillo.54 68.58 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.92 160.236 1.443 0.037 1. Jalisco 2001 191.139 258 Guadalajara. Sinaloa 2001 385.22 1.372. Nuevo León 2001 246. Veracruz 2001 152.838 0.20 1.934 160 Puebla.47 467.688 2.041 98 General Escobedo.752 77 Hidalgo.05 135.85 155.927 133 Nezahualcoyotl. México 2001 1. Sinaloa 2001 279.696 0. Baja California 2001 779.966 0.931 1.489 423 Juárez. Sonora 2001 129.180 1.53 98.230 1. Jalisco 2001 1. Nuevo León 2001 1.489 556 Naucalpan. Baja California Sur 2001 199.173 1.80 198.446 1.395 0.409 333 .447 0.071 121 Matamoros.408 1.712 1. México 2001 197.566 Nogales.179 0.670 1.50 56.324 Morelia.492 1. Guanajuato 2001 1.650.76 333.893.000 Urban Generation Rate Total MSW Total Waste City Year Population (kg/capita/day) Generated (kg/day) (tons/day) Durango.778 0.398 705 Metepec.28 1.94 154.92 237.205 0.398 1.10 1.94 258. México 2001 1.118.54 78.417 117 Los Cabos. México 2001 103.955 1.705 0. Durango 2001 495.05 159.980. Veracruz 2001 144.225 1.92 132. Nuevo León 2001 679.908 156 Mante.93 355.994 117 Irapuato.033 Navojoa.442 1. Chihuahua 2001 101.930 155 Nuevo Laredo. Tamaulipas 2001 427. México 2001 198. Querétaro 2001 657.569 191 Monterrey.269. Sonora 2001 164.925 264 Guaymas.153.310 57 Huixquilucan.491 801 Guadalupe.223.166 0.981 Guadalupe.819 0.264. Sonora 2001 141.689 0.864 57 Los Mochis-Topolobampo.564 1. Baja California 2001 381.245 289 Gómez Palacio.975 1.38 11.574 0.324.727 0.412 0. Tamaulipas 2001 111.878 0.944 362 Mérida.398 0.543. Puebla 2001 1.28 2.033.877 1.99 615.185 0.318 1.93 461.95 121. Colima 2001 127. Zacatecas 2001 109. Veracruz 2001 119. Baja California Sur 2001 113.13 223.890.405 0.83 542. Federal District 2001 8.531 734 México.289 0. Coahuila 2001 130.565.76 76.801 0.377 224 Iguala. Guanajuato 2001 144.857 0.95 103.698 136 Hermosillo.671 0.442 362 Madero.166 1.407 0.119 Ensenada.54 59. Tamaulipas 2001 184. Hidalgo 2001 249.20 1.94 361.528 136 Querétaro.18 801.

61 75.92 425.71 676.415 462 Xalapa.94 137.20 397.254 1.072 0.920 253 Valle de Chalco Solidaridad.967 138 Veracruz. Guanajuato 2001 138.805 0.520 1.53 71.885 1.511 0.926 68 Tuxtla Gutiérrez.458 98 San Miguel de Allende.279 1.53 71.861 0.235 0. Zacatecas 2001 124.84 256.062 397 Valle de Santiago. Puebla 2001 123.049 64 Tepic. Coahuila 2001 587.722 0.94 139. Nuevo León 2001 127.97 658.86 502.266 46 Panama .008 125 San Francisco del Rincón. Guanajuato 2001 130.895 0.85 252. Guanajuato 2001 100.830 324 Zacatecas. Oaxaca 2001 134.10 139.912 0. México 2001 687.862 260 Taxco.76 79. México 2001 722.862 118 Zamora.340 92 San Luis Potosi.086 0.076 0.80 323.62 141. Jalisco 2001 480. San Luis Potosi 2001 185.002 115 Tuxpan.765 414 Torreón.528 98 Tampico. Puebla 2001 233.925 91 Managua 2001 952.085 75 Leon 2001 147.809 1. ANNEX 59 ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.514 0. Tamaulipas 2001 298. Baja California 2001 1.494 596 San Pedro Garza García . Michoacán 2001 161.339 1.942 74 Nicaragua Chinandega 2001 124. Guerrero 2001 100. Tabasco 2001 531. Chiapas 2001 276.731 0. Michoacán 2001 268.91 212.788 0.511 80 Salamanca.18 413.425 0.94 94.743 0.844 1.415 251 Villahermosa. Colima 2001 101. San Luis Potosi 2001 678.749 1.136 1. Guanajuato 2001 228.05 463.804 257 Tijuana.068 0.94 259.94 502.000 Urban Generation Rate Total MSW Total Waste City Year Population (kg/capita/day) Generated (kg/day) (tons/day) Río Bravo.20 596. Hidalgo 2001 124.94 251.969 1. Nuevo León 2001 497. Nuevo León 2001 231.782 1. Jalisco 2001 1. Coahuila 2001 533.20 1. Sonora 2001 147.53 73.54 70.029 70 Tipitapa 2001 108.807 0.752 464 Uruapan.54 67.726 750 Tlaquepaque.730 0.80 98.222.222 Zitacuaro.539 0.107 70 Valles. México 2001 330. Guanajuato 2001 134.447 1.05 134.587 563 Toluca.52 71.537.836 95 Tecoman.645 0.063 0.369 0.899 72 San Juan del Río.71 113. Chiapas 2001 135.262.43 46. San Luis Potosi 2001 147.16 798.648 1.50 92.998 213 Tepatitlán.22 1.812 0. Querétaro 2001 184.20 277.161 252 Tapachula.53 97.04 749.54 54.306 71 Soledad de Graciano.078 1.966 114 Zapopan.53 64.679 0.018.61 70.538 Tlajomulco.239 0.54 77.87 462. Centro.553 0.063 0.509 503 San Andrés Tuxtla.756 135 Tlalnepantla.257 0.95 117.556 54 Tehuacán.508 142 Saltillo.516 503 Tulancingo. Jalisco 2001 121.457 0. Jalisco 2001 350.53 53. Michoacán 2001 139.461 0.94 252.17 562.044 798 Tonalá.049 0.979 140 Santa Catarina. Veracruz 2001 404.92 125.031 54 San Juan Bautista de Tuxtepec. Tamaulipas 2001 266.620 0. Veracruz 2001 143.92 115.393 0.012 277 Silao. Tamaulipas 2001 104.779 426 Victoria.889 0. Nayarit 2001 307.550 0.208 0.612 0.920 677 Masaya 2001 115.286 658 San Luis Río Colorado.964 72 San Nicolas de los Garza.845 0. Veracruz 2001 126.107 0. Chiapas 2001 443. Jalisco 2001 128.060 77 San Cristobal de las Casas.62 90. Veracruz 2001 463.037 139 San Martín Texmelucan.

70 173.259 87 San Miguelito 2001 293.195 452 Lima.357 0.745 449 Uruguay .733 88 Lima.112 0.50 91.365 0. Carabayllo 2001 153. Santiago de Surco 2001 251.07 217.87 219.000 Urban Generation Rate Total MSW Total Waste City Year Population (kg/capita/day) Generated (kg/day) (tons/day) Arraiján 2001 149. El Agustino 2001 166. Huancayo 2001 112.454 139 Lima.368 228 Lima. Lucia 2001 162.177 80 Lima.438 0.449 0. Los Olivos 2001 344.164 0. San Juan de Lurigancho 2001 751.690 65 Ucayali.567 0.59 112.73 121.034 64 Lima.61 179.20 150.034 1.56 202.946 99 Ciudad de Panamá 2001 708.645 0.270 1. Chorrillos 2001 264.94 163.70 139. San Borja 2001 122.856 0.61 64.433 1.916 0.779 0.54 80.157 1.023 154 Lima.399 1.767 0.720 0. Villa María del Triunfo 2001 341.59 203.282 0.649 203 Lima.70 74.350 1.66 98.734 0. Callería 2001 246.60 452.379 91 Lima.34 36. El Tambo 2001 165. San Juan de Miraflores 2001 387.203 0.184 179 Paraguay Asunción 2001 513. La Molina 2001 125.55 186.202 1.945 114 Diego Martin 2001 105.81 365.745 0. Callao Cercado 2001 449.00 287.142 0.20 448.58 154. Rímac 2001 192.31 673.08 184.351 36 Suriname Greater Paramaribo 2001 287.268 244 Lima.13 324.18 191.554 1.345 0.059 0.615 164 La Chorrera 2001 124.68 101.787 174 Saint Lucia St.131 1.57 87. Ventanilla 2001 148.837 275 Lima.20 503.52 64.507 233 Luque 2001 170.155 0. La Victoria 2001 205.62 103. Lima Cercado 2001 286.79 352.618 220 Lima.52 244.70 113.207 121 Junín.131 287 Trinidad and Tobago Couva/Tabaquite/Talparo 2001 162.344 503 Tunapuna/Piarco 2001 203.399 352 Lima. Lurigancho 2001 123.56 228.932 666 Colón 2001 174. San Miguel 2001 134.971 0.861 0. San Martín de Porres 2001 448. Vincent 2001 106.745 1.747 0.71 274.60 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.579 674 Ciudad del Este 2001 223.261 128 Lima.267 324 Lima.94 665.64 72. Independencia 2001 200.745 204 Lima.345 191 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines* St. Comas 2001 469.08 222.641 0. Ate 2001 410.162 101 Junín.78 105.04 232.902 0.716 366 Callao.918 0. Villa El Salvador 2001 364.716 187 Piura.004 74 San Juan/Laventille 2001 157.968 113 Lima.476 0.70 87.656 0.748 218 Peru Callao.05 128.926 0.068 184 San Lorenzo 2001 202.479 103 Lima.752 0.147 72 Lima.295 3. Santa Anita 2001 148.409 222 Lima.541 151 Lima. Puente Piedra 2001 183. Castilla 2001 106.363 105 Lima.908 0.975 2.

437.337 0.57 530.40 75.69 194.25 57.938 0.933 1.234 13.575 0.322.646 1.303 5.097 Kochi 2005 595.19 42.117 43 Greater Mumbai 2005 11.125 2.035 399 .484 0.319 650 Ahmedabad 2005 3.693 Coimbatore 2005 930.135 0.405.585 0.58 214.23 214.45 435.492 0.678 5.90 123.273 0.766 Iran (Damghani et al.862 0.217 485 Maldonado 2001 137.39 1.032 0.083 42 Indore 2005 1.621 South Asia India (CPCB 2005) Agartala 2005 189.292 233 Chandigarh 2005 808.204 507 Amritsar 2005 966.603 531 Dehradun 2005 426.998 0.520.303.000 1.36 233.160.62 2.390 0.645 0.488 560 Jabalpur 2005 932.517 1.693.711 78 Faridabad 2005 1.150 88 Municipio Girardot Edo Aragua 2001 396.42 443.15 169.39 905.044 Iraq (UNSD 2009) Baghdad 2005 6.326 0.343.968 0.000 1.182 1.390.942 575 Bhubaneswar 2005 648.52 507.38 560.191 Imphal 2005 221.895 0.52 468.40 323.57 5.882 0.019.22 43.088 435 Asansol 2005 475.406 323 Chennai 2005 4.518 217 Municipio Maracaibo Edo Zulia 2001 1.280 0.273 0.494 443 Gandhinagar 2005 195.461 342 Kanpur 2005 2.301.193 209 Banglore 2005 4.50 216.959 0.575 0.43 1.060 2.836.302 Aizwal 2005 228.161 Municipio Iribarren Edo Lara 2001 895.020 Municipio Barinas Edo Barinas 2001 283.843 2.71 11.168 0.621.93 1.970 170 Middle East & North Africa Egypt (UNSD 2009) Cairo 2007 7.393 0.978.784.354 0.45 5.678 Bhopal 2005 1.306. ANNEX 61 ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.40 574.74 521.097.345 1.44 209.08 1.450 0.286 1.88 7.275.979 162 Hyderabad 2005 3.439 0.766.713 0.603 Venezuela Distrito Capital 2001 1.51 650.325 194 Municipio Caroni Edo Bolivar 2001 704.000 7.804 906 Jammu 2005 369.471 214 Jaipur 2005 2.258 0.104.875 Dhanbad 2005 199.518.070 57 Allahabad 2005 975.551.084 521 Municipio German Roscio Edo Guarico 2001 103.203.000 Urban Generation Rate Total MSW Total Waste City Year Population (kg/capita/day) Generated (kg/day) (tons/day) Canelones 2001 539.39 77.23 1.10 2.843.706 0.432 11.190.602 469 Municipio Lagunillas Edo Zulia 2001 144.915 2.515 0.602.269 132 Delhi 2005 10.302.044.31 342.055.651 124 Montevideo 2001 1.800 1.390 Guwahati 2005 809.37 1.31 132.989 0.765.57 2.130 0.518 Municipio Pedraza Edo Apure 2001 283.474.674 0.85 88.77 13.28 80.085 0.075 1.677.985 0.914 1.874.666 0. 2008) Tehran 2005 8.576 215 Jamshedpur 2005 1.999 76 Agra 2005 1.20 161.452 0.90 485.67 399.431 1.166 80 Municipio Simon Rodriguez Edo Anzoategui 2001 147.408 1.

30 278.572.538.772 0.698 1.681 353 Varanasi 2005 1.73 154.865 0.62 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX F (continued) MSW Generation Data for Cities Over 100.23 171.433.854 128 NOTES: * Denotes domestic waste data as MSW figures are unknown.21 203.167.282 0.48 431.175 45 Simla 2005 142.53 741.052.077.467 0.872 998 Tiruvanantapuram 2005 744.476 0.168 Raipur 2005 605.22 480.41 997.440 0.110 154 Moratuwa 2007 189. Domestic waste Domestic solid or semi-solid waste generated by human activities a the household level.310 130 Pune 2005 2.918 0.747 0.017 513 Nashik 2005 1.67 127.31 226.787 0.185.675 205 Patna 2005 1. and from public cleansing.876 0.867 0.066 0.068.584 506 Pondicherry 2005 220.27 38.25 211.848 426 Vijaywada 2005 851.306.346 171 Vadodara 2005 1.913 580 Nepal (Alam 2008) Kathmandu 2003 738.39 425.490 38 Srinagar 2005 898.59 130.790 0.635 492 Nagpur 2005 2.000 inhabitants .652.564 375 Vishakhapatnam 2005 982.000 Urban Generation Rate Total MSW Total Waste City Year Population (kg/capita/day) Generated (kg/day) (tons/day) Kolkata 2005 4.904 481 Ludhiana 2005 1.366.19 204.724 182 Rajkot 2005 967. PAHO defines municipal waste and domestic waste as follows: PAHO definitions: Municipal waste Solid or semi-solid waste generated in of population centers including domestic and commercial wastes.188 741 Madurai 2005 928.835 0. small-scale industries and institutions (including hospital and clinics).37 505.904 0.46 1.30 181.59 579.251 431 Surat 2005 2.268 2.170 203 Ranchi 2005 847.44 374.091. ** China cities have populations over 750.58 2.800 227 Sri Lanka (UNSD 2009) Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia 2007 209.773 212 Shillong 2005 132.236 0.555 0.927 0. as well as those originated by the.398.652 Lucknow 2005 2.660 279 Meerut 2005 1.27 352.34 45.983 0. markets street sweeping.444 0.173 0.093 0.25 513.868 0.473 0.46 491.227 0.

000 48 Togo (Parrot et al.777.30 Niger (UNSD 2009) Zinder** 2007 242. 2009) Dakar 2003 1.20 Côte d’Ivoire (Parrot et al.200 100 Croatia Zagreb 2006 784.40 Tanzania (Parrot et al.000 100 China.300.962.000.000 83 Philippines Manila 2007 1. Hong Kong SAR Hong Kong 2007 6. 2009) Abidjan 2002 2.900 100 Georgia Tbilisi 2007 1.960 95 .000 42 Zambia (UNSD 2009) Lusaka 2005 1. 2009) Lome 2002 1. ANNEX 63 ANNEX G MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100.312.708.500.000 30 .926.200 51 Cameroon (Parrot et al.450 10 Burkina Faso (UNSD 2009) Ouagadougou 1995 876.714 95 Eastern Europe & Central Asia (UNSD 2009) Albania Tirana 2007 1.200 62 Kutaisi 2007 185.000 15 .532. 2009) Yaounde 2005 1.45 Mauritania (Parrot et al.300. 2009) Dar es Salaam N/A 2. Macao SAR Macao 2007 525.760 100 Indonesia Jakarta 2004 8.000 18 Zimbabwe (UNSD 2009) Harare 2007 2.000 30 .500.000 99 East Asia & Pacific (UNSD 2009) China. 2009) Nouakchott N/A 611.000 MSW Collection Coverage City Year Urban Population (%) Africa Benin (UNSD 2009) Parakou 2002 148. 2009) Ndjamena 2003 800.000 100 Batumi 2007 303.720.40 Guinea (UNSD 2009) Conakry 2007 3.000 30 .000 43 Chad (Parrot et al.806.000 90 Belarus Minsk 2007 1.000 76 Kenya (Parrot et al.883 20 .000.660. 2009) Nairobi 2006 2.800 77 Senegal (Parrot et al.

113.036 100 Coquimbo. Cerro Navia 2001 148.475 100 Los Lagos.955 76 La Paz 2001 790.390 100 Santiago.268 100 Valparaíso. Calama 2001 138. Recoleta 2001 148. Punta Arenas 2001 120.544.396 100 Neuquen 2001 202. Coquimbo 2001 163.874 100 Santiago.783 88 Santa Cruz de la Sierra 2001 1.283. Antofagasta 2001 318.792 100 Tarapacá.674 100 Santiago.931 100 .874 100 Maule.559 100 Magallanes.402 100 Araucanía.220 100 Santiago.344 100 Biobío.000 88 Sucre 2001 193. Maipú 2001 468.353 87 Oruro 2001 201.876 85 Tarija 2001 135. Santiago 2001 200.085 100 Santiago. Osorno 2001 145. Talca 2001 203. 2005) Argentina Area Metropolitana Buenos Aires 2001 12. Puerto Montt 2001 175.018 100 Bahia Blanca 2001 285.982 100 Valparaíso. La Pintana 2001 190. Curicó 2001 120.000 100 Barbados* Barbados 2001 268.779 99 Antofagasta.000 100 Cordoba 2001 1.312 100 Santiago.026 90 El Alto 2001 629. Talcahuano 2001 250. La Serena 2001 160.347 100 B.231 100 Santiago.792 100 Bolivia* Cochabamba 2001 717. Rancagua 2001 214.004 100 Salta Capital 2001 472.938 100 Los Lagos.230 92 Potosi 2001 135.348 100 Coquimbo.953 100 Biobío. La Florida 2001 365.518 100 Parana 2001 245. Chillán 2001 161.783 93 Chile Antofagasta. Valdivia 2001 140.677 100 Rafaela 2001 100. Bahamas 2001 200.971 100 Bahamas Nassau. Valparaíso 2001 275.061 100 Biobío.148 100 Los Lagos. Arica 2001 185. Concepción 2001 216. Viña del Mar 2001 286. Temuco 2001 245. Providencia 2001 120.127 100 Rosario 2001 906.000 100 Rio Cuarto 2001 154.000 MSW Collection Coverage City Year Urban Population (%) Latin America and the Caribbean (PAHO.64 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX G (continued) MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100.299 100 Maule.O’Higgins.

000 97 Sincelejo 2001 234.000 94 Popayán 2001 206.217 100 Holguín 2001 268.000 100 Cali 2001 2.558.000 100 Pereira 2001 401.846 100 .181.276.000 95 Sogamoso 2001 114.000 100 Manizales 2001 345.632 100 Guantánamo 2001 222.000 81 Soledad 2001 310.897 97 Ciudad de La Habana 2001 2.000 98 Palmira 2001 234.000 98 Santa Marta 2001 382.000 100 Soacha 2001 285.843 100 Manzanillo 2001 110.000 97 Bogotá 2001 6.000 100 Tuluá 2001 157.000 98 Villavicencio 2001 289.832 100 Camagüey 2001 308.000 97 Cartago 2001 129.000 97 Itagüí 2001 246.935 100 Cienfuegos 2001 154.000 100 Bello 2001 353.000 100 Pasto 2001 349.000 100 Bucaramanga 2001 543.000 98 Maicao 2001 115.000 80 Buga 2001 113.288 100 Ciego de Ávila 2001 118.000 80 Floridablanca 2001 232.000 100 Barranquilla 2001 1.000 84 Envigado 2001 145.000 100 Neiva 2001 317.000 100 Medellín 2001 1.909. ANNEX 65 ANNEX G (continued) MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100.000 99 Florencia 2001 116.000 100 Dosquebradas 2001 166.000 100 Tunja 2001 112.000 95 Ibagué 2001 403.000 100 Montería 2001 256.000 97 Cartagena 2001 854.384 100 Cuba Bayamo 2001 154.000 98 Costa Rica Alajuela 2001 234.000 100 Buenaventura 2001 230.000 98 Cúcuta 2001 644.000 100 Valledupar 2001 278.770 40 San José 2001 326.000 MSW Collection Coverage City Year Urban Population (%) Colombia Armenia 2001 293.186.000 95 Girardot 2001 117.737 82 Desamparados 2001 203.000 100 Barrancabermeja 2001 183.

265 56 Retirement(Westmoreland.Ilopango.000 100 Haiti Cap-Haïtien 2001 141. Santa Ana 2001 167.Hanover. Guerrero 2001 728.551 100 Guatemala Antigua Guatemala 2001 248.866 16 Gonaïves 2001 138.301 16 Croix des Bouquets 2001 143.504 80 Les Cayes 2001 152.Trelawny & St.581 70 Quetzaltenango 2001 122.452 22 Port-au-Prince 2001 1.605 81 Santa Ana.868 45 Honduras San Pedro Sula 2001 483. St. St.841. Michoacán 2001 108. Elizabeth) 2001 331.Mejicanos 2001 172.039 90 Ecuador* Quito 2001 1.271 85 Aguascalientes. St.Cath.975 83 Grenada Grenada 2001 95.200 80 Santo Domingo de los Colorados 2001 200.Nueva San Salvador 2001 136.774.010 85 Acuña. Nuevo León 2001 297.66 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX G (continued) MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100.345 98 Santiago de Cuba 2001 452.085 22 Saint Marc 2001 164.157 90 San Benito 2001 366.381 100 Dominican Republic La Romana 2001 201. Tamaulipas 2001 130.735 80 Guyana Georgetown 2001 180.803 40 Delmas 2001 335.078 100 Sancti Spíritus 2001 109.421 83 El Salvador La Libertad .019 80 Guatemala 2001 2. 2001 115. Aguascalientes 2001 656. Coahuila 2001 117.And.802 73 San Salvador .245 90 Altamira.458. San Miguel 2001 172.286 95 San Salvador.541.384 85 Jamaica* North Eastern Wasteshed( Portland.Mary and St.203 82 San Salvador .155 66 Southern(Manchester.Apopa 2001 139.Thomas) 2001 1.100.845 45 Pétion Ville 2001 143. San Salvador 2001 479.177 100 Pinar del Río 2001 162.358 50 San Salvador .000 MSW Collection Coverage City Year Urban Population (%) Matanzas 2001 133.James) 2001 452.061 45 Carrefour 2001 416.700 100 Quito 2001 2.Ann) 2001 357.776 100 .724 68 Riverton ( Kgn.425 85 Apatzingan.190 48 Mexico Acapulco.307 100 Tunas 2001 144. Clarendon and St.220 91 Santa Clara 2001 220.909 94 San Miguel.926 60 Santo Domingo de los Colorados 2001 244.480 45 Jacmel 2001 138.466 85 Apodaca.Soyapango 2001 285. St.548 85 San Salvador .

268 85 Comitán de Domínguez.153. Baja California Sur 2001 113. Jalisco 2001 1.712 85 Lagos de Moreno.281 80 Cancún. México 2001 232. Tamaulipas 2001 111. Chihuahua 2001 117.205 85 León.689 95 Metepec. Sonora 2001 619. Veracruz 2001 178.442 85 Madero. Michoacán 2001 174.000 MSW Collection Coverage City Year Urban Population (%) Atizapan de Zaragoza.956 85 Chetumal.395 85 Irapuato.962 90 Ecatepec.784 85 Celaya.236 85 Hermosillo.160 95 Chilpancingo. Michoacán 2001 106. Guanajuato 2001 144. Jalisco 2001 128.655. Morelos 2001 342. Sinaloa 2001 362. Tabasco 2001 219. Guanajuato 2001 130.166 90 Guasave.185 100 Hidalgo del Parral. Veracruz 2001 135. Chiapas 2001 107. Guerrero 2001 197.998 90 Lerdo. Durango 2001 113.778 90 Juárez. Sonora 2001 129.017 90 Delicias. Sinaloa 2001 279. Chihuahua 2001 125. Yucatán 2001 714.363 90 Cuernavaca. Puebla 2001 117. Baja California Sur 2001 199.705 85 Lerma. Morelos 2001 155.105 85 Cuautla. Durango 2001 495.727 85 Los Mochis-Topolobampo.065 85 Córdoba. Tamaulipas 2001 427.289 85 Mante. México 2001 1.941 85 General Escobedo. Othon P. Blanco.414 80 Carmen.225 90 Ensenada. Chihuahua 2001 676. Colima 2001 131.443 85 Matamoros. México 2001 198. Guerrero 2001 125.673 80 Colima.166 100 Gómez Palacio. Benito Juárez. México 2001 475.870 90 Cárdenas.215 85 Dolores Hidalgo. Guanajuato 2001 1.748 85 Durango. Quintana Roo 2001 444.564 85 Iguala. Nuevo León 2001 246. Guanajuato 2001 388.699 85 . Chihuahua 2001 1.407 85 Lázaro Cárdenas.966 85 Mazatlán. Chihuahua 2001 101. Veracruz 2001 268.241 80 Chihuahua. Baja California 2001 381. Colima 2001 127. Guanajuato 2001 445. Quintana Roo 2001 209. México 2001 103.650. Durango 2001 276.683 90 Atlixco.875 85 Campeche. ANNEX 67 ANNEX G (continued) MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100. México 2001 197.922 85 Huixquilucan.909 85 Los Cabos. Zacatecas 2001 183. Nuevo León 2001 679.230 100 Guadalupe.264. Campeche 2001 219. Ahome.374 85 Culiacán.672 90 Cuauhtemoc. Campeche 2001 169.179 85 Guanajuato. Zacatecas 2001 109. Tamaulipas 2001 184.085 85 Guadalajara. Sinaloa 2001 755.390 85 Hidalgo.012 95 Chalco.929 85 Boca del Río.121 90 La Paz.275 85 Coatzacoalcos.671 85 Manzanillo. Sinaloa 2001 385.047 85 Mérida.747 95 Fresnillo.776 90 Guadalupe.878 85 Guaymas.

955 100 Minatitlán. Coahuila 2001 194. Coahuila 2001 533. Cajeme.458 85 Monterrey.877 100 Oaxaca.078 100 San Pedro Garza García . Veracruz 2001 126.461 85 Tuxpan. Puebla 2001 1.889 85 Tecoman.405 90 Pachuca. Sonora 2001 357.731 85 San Francisco del Rincón.254 100 Santa Catarina.807 90 Tepatitlán. México 2001 687. Veracruz 2001 152.912 90 San Martín Texmelucan.063 85 Tapachula.615. Tamaulipas 2001 438.063 85 Tampico. Veracruz 2001 119.743 85 Taxco.679 90 San Luis Potosi.730 90 San Andrés Tuxtla. Guanajuato 2001 138.239 90 Saltillo. Baja California 2001 1. San Luis Potosi 2001 185. Nuevo León 2001 497. Nuevo León 2001 127.180 80 Nogales.372. San Luis Potosi 2001 678. Coahuila 2001 130. Puebla 2001 233.696 85 Río Bravo. Oaxaca 2001 259.398 100 Poza Rica. Sonora 2001 147.648 95 Torreón. Jalisco 2001 128. Sonora 2001 164.223.412 85 Nezahualcoyotl.339 85 Tlalnepantla. Veracruz 2001 143. México 2001 861.550 80 Tijuana.447 100 Reynosa. Chiapas 2001 276. Jalisco 2001 121.523 80 México. Querétaro 2001 657. Querétaro 2001 184.049 85 Tehuacán. Sonora 2001 141. Tamaulipas 2001 298. Jalisco 2001 350. México 2001 722.000 MSW Collection Coverage City Year Urban Population (%) Mexicali.457 100 Tulancingo. Oaxaca 2001 134. Guanajuato 2001 100.279 95 Tlaquepaque. Nuevo León 2001 1.636 100 Morelia.076 85 Tepic.819 85 Nuevo Laredo. Coahuila 2001 587. Guanajuato 2001 228. Federal District 2001 8.520 95 Tlajomulco. Baja California 2001 779.895 85 San Juan del Río. Colima 2001 101. Tamaulipas 2001 104.857 85 Orizaba. Tamaulipas 2001 317. Veracruz 2001 144.393 90 San Nicolas de los Garza. Chiapas 2001 135.424 85 Querétaro.235 85 San Cristobal de las Casas. Guerrero 2001 100. Michoacán 2001 628. Hidalgo 2001 249.343 80 Obregón.318 85 Puebla.446 95 Puerto Vallarta.801 85 Naucalpan.112.809 100 Silao. Nuevo León 2001 231.68 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX G (continued) MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100. Jalisco 2001 191.805 90 San Juan Bautista de Tuxtepec.072 85 San Miguel de Allende.574 85 Monclova.257 85 .645 85 San Luis Río Colorado.262.844 95 Toluca.173 90 Navojoa.539 90 Soledad de Graciano. Jalisco 2001 480. Puebla 2001 123.838 95 Piedras Negras. Nayarit 2001 307. Guanajuato 2001 134. Hidalgo 2001 124.620 85 Salamanca. México 2001 1.969 85 Tonalá.

908 80 .357 66 Junín. Lima Cercado 2001 286. El Agustino 2001 166.861 73 Lima.722 85 Zamora.554 75 Lima.782 85 Uruapan.202 85 Lima.068 80 Panama Arraiján 2001 149. Michoacán 2001 268. Michoacán 2001 161.745 26 Peru Callao. Centro. Lurigancho 2001 123. Veracruz 2001 463.645 89 Lima.885 80 Valle de Santiago. San Luis Potosi 2001 147.425 90 Zapopan.000 MSW Collection Coverage City Year Urban Population (%) Tuxtla Gutiérrez.203 70 Lima.350 60 Fernando de la Mora 2001 114. La Victoria 2001 205. Tamaulipas 2001 266. Tabasco 2001 531. San Borja 2001 122.270 63 Lima. San Martín de Porres 2001 448.747 90 Lima. Los Olivos 2001 344.282 75 Callao.399 99 Capiatá 2001 154.112 78 Lima. El Tambo 2001 165. Veracruz 2001 404.059 66 La Chorrera 2001 124. Ate 2001 410. San Juan de Miraflores 2001 387. Carabayllo 2001 153.365 66 Lima.845 70 Managua 2001 952.034 75 Lima.107 80 Leon 2001 147.767 57 Junín.345 74 Lima. Chorrillos 2001 264. Puente Piedra 2001 183.553 85 Valles.142 65 Lima. Ventanilla 2001 148.612 90 Villahermosa.208 85 Valle de Chalco Solidaridad. Jalisco 2001 1.641 65 Lima. Michoacán 2001 139.984 42 Luque 2001 170. Guanajuato 2001 130. Zacatecas 2001 124.155 47 Lima.734 89 Lima.812 90 Victoria. Callao Cercado 2001 449. ANNEX 69 ANNEX G (continued) MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100. Chiapas 2001 443. Independencia 2001 200.902 80 Lima. Comas 2001 469. Rímac 2001 192.018.449 89 Lima.656 64 San Miguelito 2001 293.788 90 Zacatecas. La Molina 2001 125.511 80 Xalapa.514 85 Nicaragua Chinandega 2001 124. Huancayo 2001 112.332 97 Lambare 2001 119.438 80 Colón 2001 174. San Juan de Lurigancho 2001 751.433 54 San Lorenzo 2001 202.745 95 Paraguay Asunción 2001 513. México 2001 330.469 35 Ciudad del Este 2001 223.918 63 Ciudad de Panamá 2001 708.447 90 Zitacuaro. San Miguel 2001 134.086 85 Veracruz.164 87 Lima.

790 90 NOTES: * Domestic waste data used as MSW figures not available.70 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX G (continued) MSW Collection Data for Cities Over 100.173 94 Sri Lanka (UNSD 2009) Dehiwala-Mount Lavinia 2007 209.916 90 Suriname Greater Paramaribo 2001 287. Castilla 2001 106.000 86 South Asia Nepal (Alam 2008) Kathmandu 2003 738. hence it is assumed that waste collection coverage is for domestic waste and not MSW ** Urban population data from 2007.182 90 Venezuela Distrito Capital 2001 1.800 100 Middle East & North Africa (UNSD 2009) Egypt Cairo 2007 7. as well as those originated by the.405. Santa Anita 2001 148.000 77 Iraq Baghdad 2005 6.856 70 Saint Lucia St.971 80 Piura.836.157 100 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines* St. and from public cleansing.752 71 Lima.286 80 Municipio Barinas Edo Barinas 2001 283. Lucia 2001 162.926 77 Ucayali. Vincent 2001 106.989 80 Municipio Lagunillas Edo Zulia 2001 144.933 87 Municipio Pedraza Edo Apure 2001 283. .779 100 Diego Martin 2001 105.295 100 Tunapuna/Piarco 2001 203.476 77 Lima.273 100 Municipio Simon Bolivar Edo Anzoategui 2001 344. Waste collection coverage data from 2006 PAHO definitions: Municipal waste Solid or semi-solid waste generated in of population centers including domestic and commercial wastes.303. markets street sweeping. small-scale industries and institutions (including hospital and clinics).168 68 Municipio Girardot Edo Aragua 2001 396.567 79 Lima.975 100 Uruguay Canelones 2001 539.784.787 96 Moratuwa 2007 189. Callería 2001 246.000 MSW Collection Coverage City Year Urban Population (%) Lima.345 90 Municipio Maracaibo Edo Zulia 2001 1. Villa María del Triunfo 2001 341. Santiago de Surco 2001 251.765.131 82 Trinidad and Tobago Couva/Tabaquite/Talparo 2001 162.273 100 Municipio Caroni Edo Bolivar 2001 704.720 100 San Juan/Laventille 2001 157.390 95 Montevideo 2001 1. Domestic waste Domestic solid or semi-solid waste generated by human activities a the household level.593 80 Municipio Simon Rodriguez Edo Anzoategui 2001 147.125 88 Municipio Iribarren Edo Lara 2001 895.130 75 Maldonado 2001 137. Villa El Salvador 2001 364.

A.677 0 0 100 0 0 Salta Capital 472. Recoleta 148.348 0 75 0 0 25 Coquimbo. Antofagasta 318. Cerro Navia 148. Puerto Montt 175.779 0 100 0 0 0 Antofagasta.792 35 48 0 N. Punta Arenas 120. ANNEX 71 ANNEX H MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100.846 20 0 80 0 0 .832 0 9 90 0 1 Camagüey 308.783 90 0 0 0 10 Barbados Antofagasta. Calama 138.347 98 0 0 0 2 B.344 100 0 0 0 0 Barbados 268.843 20 80 0 0 0 Manzanillo 110.982 100 0 0 0 0 Valparaíso.953 0 0 100 0 0 Biobío.402 0 75 0 0 25 Araucanía.475 100 0 0 0 0 Los Lagos.186. Arica 185. Maipú 468.A. Osorno 145.036 0 100 0 0 0 Coquimbo.018 100 0 0 0 0 Bahia Blanca 285. Talcahuano 250.061 0 100 0 0 0 Biobío.353 87 0 0 N.792 86 0 0 0 14 Tarapacá.231 100 0 0 0 0 Santiago. Coquimbo 163.000 80 0 0 0 0 Neuquen 202.312 100 0 0 0 0 Santiago.000 Sanitary Controlled Open Water- Urban Other City Landfill Landfill Dump courses Population (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Latin America & Caribbean (PAHO 2005) Argentina Area Metropolitana Buenos Aires 12.268 0 95 0 0 5 Valparaíso. Valdivia 140. Valparaíso 275.971 100 0 0 0 0 Bolivia Cochabamba 717.288 0 100 0 0 0 Ciego de Ávila 118.632 0 90 11 0 0 Guantánamo 222.518 100 0 0 0 0 Parana 245. Temuco 245.217 0 100 0 0 0 Holguín 268.000 85 0 0 9 6 Sucre 193.674 100 0 0 0 0 Santiago. Talca 203. Providencia 120. Rancagua 214.113.559 83 0 0 0 17 Magallanes.148 0 100 0 0 0 Los Lagos. Santiago 200.897 14 0 85 0 1 Ciudad de La Habana 2.230 89 0 5 0 7 Potosi 135.A. 17 Biobío.931 0 99 0 0 1 Cuba Bayamo 154.935 0 100 0 0 0 Cienfuegos 154. La Florida 365.874 100 0 0 0 0 Santiago.O'Higgins.390 99 0 0 0 2 Santiago. Viña del Mar 286. Chillán 161.544.026 87 0 0 0 13 El Alto 629. Concepción 216. Curicó 120.955 0 74 16 N.938 0 96 0 0 4 Los Lagos. La Serena 160.876 83 0 9 0 9 Tarija 135.220 100 0 0 0 0 Santiago.299 100 0 0 0 0 Maule. 11 La Paz 790.874 0 85 0 0 15 Maule.783 85 0 0 0 15 Santa Cruz de la Sierra 1. 13 Oruro 201.

000 100 0 0 0 0 Soledad 310.000 99 0 0 0 1 Itagüí 246.000 100 0 0 0 0 Bello 353.940 100 0 0 0 0 Desamparados 203.000 0 90 0 0 10 Ibagué 403.909.737 100 0 0 0 0 Cartago 138.000 0 98 0 0 2 Santa Marta 382.774.000 Sanitary Controlled Open Water- Urban Other City Landfill Landfill Dump courses Population (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Matanzas 133.000 99 0 0 0 1 Florencia 116.000 100 0 0 0 0 Envigado 145.000 100 0 0 0 0 Montería 256.214 0 0 100 0 0 San Carlos 135.580 0 0 100 0 0 Santiago de los Caballeros 594.398 100 0 0 0 0 Pérez Zeledón 129.307 100 0 0 0 0 Tunas 144.000 100 0 0 0 0 Soacha 285.219 0 30 0 0 70 Pococí 109.133 0 0 97 0 3 San José 326.000 95 0 0 0 5 Costa Rica Alajuela 234.926 83 10 0 3 4 .000 100 0 0 0 0 Pasto 349.381 81 0 19 0 0 Colombia Armenia 293.000 0 0 100 0 0 Tuluá 157.770 90 0 0 0 10 Goicoechea 123.000 100 0 0 0 0 Cali 2.000 0 98 0 0 2 Buenaventura 230.000 0 0 100 0 0 Floridablanca 232.000 0 0 100 0 0 Palmira 234.000 100 0 0 0 0 Cartago 129.72 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX H (continued) MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100.000 99 0 0 0 1 Popayán 206.181.345 93 0 5 0 2 Santiago de Cuba 452.000 98 0 0 0 2 Maicao 115.177 0 100 0 0 0 Pinar del Río 162.000 100 0 0 0 0 Bucaramanga 543.220 0 88 13 0 0 Santa Clara 220.000 0 86 0 0 14 Sincelejo 234.000 0 0 100 0 0 Barranquilla 1.000 0 0 100 0 0 Cartagena 854.424 0 0 100 0 0 Santo Domingo 2.000 0 0 0 100 0 Buga 113.000 100 0 0 0 0 Valledupar 278.367 0 100 0 0 0 Puntarenas 108.078 20 80 0 0 0 Sancti Spíritus 109.558.384 98 0 0 0 2 Dominican Republic San Francisco de Macorís 210.000 82 0 0 0 18 Dosquebradas 166.000 0 0 0 100 0 Manizales 345.000 0 0 100 0 0 Sogamoso 114.000 97 0 0 0 3 Bogotá 6.000 100 0 0 0 0 Barrancabermeja 183.000 100 0 0 0 0 Medellín 1.276.375 100 0 0 0 0 Heredia 109.

Blanco. Veracruz 268. Chihuahua 676.414 0 0 94 0 6 Carmen.200 84 0 0 0 16 Santo Domingo de los Colrados 200.458.868 0 0 54 23 23 Honduras Distrito Central 819. Michoacán 108. St.155 0 100 0 0 0 Southern(Manchester. Tamaulipas 130. Guerrero 728. Colima 131.085 0 0 30 0 70 Saint Marc 164. Campeche 219.673 0 0 94 0 6 Colima. St.Ann) 357.504 0 0 35 0 65 Les Cayes 152.Mary and St.Elizabeth) 331.866 0 0 44 0 56 Gonaïves 138.281 0 0 94 0 6 Cancún.160 93 0 0 0 7 Chilpancingo. Aguascalientes 656. México 475.776 93 0 0 0 7 Atizapan de Zaragoza.268 94 0 0 0 6 . Clarendon and St.010 94 0 0 0 6 Acuña.000 Sanitary Controlled Open Water- Urban Other City Landfill Landfill Dump courses Population (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Ecuador Quito 1.425 0 94 0 0 6 Apatzingan. Nuevo León 297. Benito Juárez.845 0 0 54 23 23 Pétion Ville 143.724 0 100 0 0 0 Riverton ( Kgn.000 0 90 0 10 0 Haiti Cap-Haïtien 141.480 0 0 60 0 40 Jacmel 138.Hanover.605 81 0 0 0 19 San Salvador .452 0 0 38 26 36 Port-au-Prince 1.Cath. Quintana Roo 209. Campeche 169.271 0 0 94 0 6 Aguascalientes. St.275 0 0 94 0 6 Coatzacoalcos.974 0 100 0 0 0 Retirement(Westmoreland.421 0 91 0 0 9 El Salvador San Salvador.James) 452. St. Guerrero 197.784 0 0 94 0 6 Celaya. Coahuila 117.841.803 0 0 80 0 20 Delmas 335.190 0 100 0 0 0 Mexico Acapulco.956 0 0 94 0 6 Chetumal.100.Elizabeth) 331.581 0 40 0 0 60 Guyana Georgetown 180.190 0 100 0 0 0 Southern(Manchester.867 0 100 0 0 0 Jamaica North Eastern Wasteshed( Portland.466 0 0 94 0 6 Apodaca.012 94 0 0 0 6 Chalco. Othon P. St.241 0 0 94 0 6 Chihuahua.551 90 0 0 0 10 Guatemala Guatemala 2.Thomas) 1. Veracruz 135. Quintana Roo 444.And. México 232.245 94 0 0 0 6 Altamira. Tabasco 219.301 0 0 38 0 62 Croix des Bouquets 143. San Salvador 479.683 94 0 0 0 6 Atlixco.929 0 0 94 0 6 Boca del Río.541. Puebla 117. ANNEX 73 ANNEX H (continued) MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100.875 0 94 0 0 6 Campeche. Guanajuato 388.Trelawny & St.265 0 100 0 0 0 Portmore 159.870 94 0 0 0 6 Cárdenas.Soyapango 285.061 0 0 65 25 10 Carrefour 416.286 95 0 0 0 5 Grenada Grenada 95.

Sinaloa 362. Chihuahua 117. Sonora 164. Zacatecas 109.699 0 94 0 0 6 Mexicali.671 0 0 94 0 6 Manzanillo. Guanajuato 445.955 92 0 0 0 8 Minatitlán. Nuevo León 1.000 Sanitary Controlled Open Water- Urban Other City Landfill Landfill Dump courses Population (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Comitán de Domínguez. Ahome.909 0 0 94 0 6 Los Cabos.778 0 94 0 0 6 Juárez.173 0 94 0 0 6 Navojoa.712 0 0 92 0 8 Lagos de Moreno.655. Durango 113. Baja California Sur 113. Guerrero 125. Morelos 155. Sinaloa 385.112.672 0 0 94 0 6 Cuauhtemoc.017 94 0 0 0 6 Delicias.215 0 0 94 0 6 Dolores Hidalgo.564 0 94 0 0 6 Iguala.153.801 0 0 94 0 6 Naucalpan.205 0 94 0 0 6 León. Morelos 342.390 0 0 94 0 6 Hidalgo.065 0 0 94 0 6 Córdoba. Tamaulipas 427. Nuevo León 246.998 92 0 0 0 8 Lerdo.363 94 0 0 0 6 Cuernavaca.636 93 0 0 0 7 Morelia. Baja California 779. Tamaulipas 184.727 94 0 0 0 6 Los Mochis-Topolobampo. Jalisco 128.225 94 0 0 0 6 Ensenada.085 0 92 0 0 8 Guadalajara.941 0 94 0 0 6 General Escobedo. Chiapas 107. Coahuila 194. Chihuahua 125.443 0 0 94 0 6 Matamoros.374 0 0 94 0 6 Culiacán.047 0 94 0 0 6 Mérida.121 92 0 0 0 8 La Paz. Michoacán 174. México 103.185 94 0 0 0 6 Hidalgo del Parral. Sonora 141.705 0 0 94 0 6 Lerma. Nuevo León 679. Tamaulipas 111. Durango 495.74 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX H (continued) MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100.458 0 0 94 0 6 Monterrey.523 0 94 0 0 6 México.289 0 0 94 0 6 Mante. Durango 276.105 0 0 94 0 6 Cuautla.236 0 0 94 0 6 Hermosillo. Yucatán 714. Michoacán 628.395 0 0 92 0 8 Irapuato. México 197.442 94 0 0 0 6 Madero.748 0 0 94 0 6 Durango.962 92 0 0 0 8 Ecatepec.264.819 94 0 0 0 6 . Sinaloa 755.179 0 0 94 0 6 Guanajuato.689 93 0 0 0 7 Metepec.180 0 70 23 0 7 Nogales. Veracruz 178.776 0 94 0 0 6 Guadalupe. Colima 127.166 94 0 0 0 6 Guasave. Sonora 129.650. Sinaloa 279. Baja California Sur 199.412 0 0 94 0 6 Nezahualcoyotl.878 94 0 0 0 6 Guaymas. Sonora 619. México 861.166 93 0 0 0 7 Gómez Palacio.615. Chihuahua 101. México 198.747 0 0 94 0 6 Fresnillo. Distrito Federal 8.574 0 0 94 0 6 Monclova. Guanajuato 1. Michoacán 106.922 0 0 94 0 6 Huixquilucan. Guanajuato 130.223.407 0 0 94 0 6 Lázaro Cárdenas. Veracruz 144. Chihuahua 1.966 94 0 0 0 6 Mazatlán. Jalisco 1. Zacatecas 183. México 1. México 1.230 93 0 0 0 7 Guadalupe. Baja California 381. Guanajuato 144.

679 94 0 0 0 6 San Luis Potosi. Nuevo León 231. Veracruz 126.000 Sanitary Controlled Open Water- Urban Other City Landfill Landfill Dump courses Population (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Nuevo Laredo.645 94 0 0 0 6 San Luis Río Colorado. ANNEX 75 ANNEX H (continued) MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100. Guanajuato 134. Veracruz 463. Guanajuato 138. Oaxaca 259.393 94 0 0 0 6 San Nicolas de los Garza.539 94 0 0 0 6 Soledad de Graciano.208 0 0 94 0 6 Valle de Chalco Solidaridad.912 0 0 94 0 6 San Martín Texmelucan.807 0 94 0 0 6 Tepatitlán. Centro. México 330.805 0 0 92 0 8 San Juan Bautista de Tuxtepec.343 0 0 94 0 6 Obregón. San Luis Potosi 678.877 96 0 0 0 4 Oaxaca.076 0 94 0 0 6 Tepic.743 94 0 0 0 6 Taxco.339 92 0 0 0 8 Tlalnepantla.086 0 0 94 0 6 Veracruz.372. Veracruz 119.405 94 0 0 0 6 Pachuca.620 94 0 0 0 6 Salamanca.696 0 0 94 0 6 Río Bravo. San Luis Potosi 147.078 93 0 0 0 7 San Pedro Garza García . Nuevo León 497.648 0 94 0 0 6 Torreón.072 0 0 94 0 6 San Miguel de Allende. Hidalgo 249.838 94 0 0 0 6 Piedras Negras.520 94 0 0 0 6 Tlajomulco. Guanajuato 228. Jalisco 350. Veracruz 152.730 94 0 0 0 6 San Andrés Tuxtla. Chiapas 276. Querétaro 657. Coahuila 130. Coahuila 533. Guerrero 100.857 0 0 94 0 6 Orizaba. Puebla 123. Tabasco 531.318 94 0 0 0 6 Puebla.398 94 0 0 0 6 Poza Rica.262.457 94 0 0 0 6 Tulancingo.446 93 0 0 0 7 Puerto Vallarta.235 0 0 94 0 6 San Cristobal de las Casas. Nayarit 307. Jalisco 121. México 722.782 0 0 94 0 6 Uruapan. Guanajuato 100. Oaxaca 134. Querétaro 184. Puebla 233. Sonora 147.969 0 94 0 0 6 Tonalá. San Luis Potosi 185. México 687. Puebla 1. Tamaulipas 104. Chiapas 135.461 0 0 94 0 6 Tuxpan.812 0 94 0 0 6 Victoria.257 94 0 0 0 6 Tuxtla Gutiérrez. Hidalgo 124.889 0 0 94 0 6 Tecoman. Cajeme. Guanajuato 130. Sonora 357.279 94 0 0 0 6 Tlaquepaque.844 0 94 0 0 6 Toluca. Tamaulipas 298.553 0 0 94 0 6 Valles.550 94 0 0 0 6 Tijuana. Coahuila 587.895 0 0 94 0 6 San Juan del Río.612 94 0 0 0 6 Villahermosa.809 93 0 0 0 7 Silao. Michoacán 268. Tamaulipas 438. Baja California 1. Tamaulipas 266. Colima 101.049 0 0 94 0 6 Tehuacán. Jalisco 128.511 0 0 94 0 6 .731 0 0 94 0 6 San Francisco del Rincón. Jalisco 191. Veracruz 143.239 0 0 94 0 6 Saltillo. Jalisco 480. Tamaulipas 317.254 93 0 0 0 7 Santa Catarina.424 94 0 0 0 6 Querétaro.885 0 0 94 0 6 Valle de Santiago. Nuevo León 127.447 94 0 0 0 6 Reynosa.063 0 0 94 0 6 Tapachula.063 0 0 94 0 6 Tampico. Chiapas 443.

San Juan de Miraflores 387.447 92 0 0 0 8 Zitacuaro. Carabayllo 153.656 0 0 64 N.971 0 71 12 0 17 Piura.788 0 0 94 0 6 Zacatecas.369 0 0 71 0 29 Tipitapa 108. Comas 469.438 80 0 N.722 0 0 94 0 6 Zamora. La Victoria 205.645 0 79 3 0 18 Lima. Veracruz 404. Villa María del Triunfo 341.164 78 0 5 0 17 Lima.034 0 67 20 0 13 Lima.554 0 66 21 0 13 Lima. 34 La Chorrera 124. Santiago de Surco 251.747 80 0 2 0 18 Lima.357 0 59 26 0 15 Junín. Callao Cercado 449.861 0 65 19 0 16 Lima.000 Sanitary Controlled Open Water- Urban Other City Landfill Landfill Dump courses Population (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Xalapa. 37 Ciudad de Panamá 708.433 0 100 0 0 0 Peru Callao.D.514 0 0 94 0 6 Nicaragua Chinandega 124.068 0 49 0 0 51 Masaya 115. Lurigancho 123. Los Olivos 344. Castilla 106.270 0 56 32 0 12 Lima.425 0 0 94 0 6 Zapopan. Santa Anita 148. San Martín de Porres 448. Villa El Salvador 364.D. 5 Paraguay Asunción 513.202 76 0 11 0 13 Lima.155 0 42 46 0 12 Lima.856 0 62 23 0 15 . San Borja 122.752 0 63 21 0 16 Lima. Michoacán 139. N. La Molina 125.D.745 95 0 N.76 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX H (continued) MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100. Chorrillos 264. Huancayo 112.018.918 0 0 63 N. Callería 246.641 0 58 29 0 13 Lima. Rímac 192.D. San Juan de Lurigancho 751.282 0 67 18 0 15 Callao.D.476 0 68 16 0 16 Lima. El Tambo 165. Puente Piedra 183.567 70 0 15 0 15 Lima. N. El Agustino 166. San Miguel 134.926 0 69 16 0 15 Ucayali.059 0 0 66 N.767 0 51 35 0 14 Junín. Ate 410.399 37 61 0 0 2 Luque 170.902 0 71 12 0 17 Lima.345 66 0 20 0 14 Lima. 20 Colón 174. Lima Cercado 286.D. Jalisco 1.112 70 0 14 0 16 Lima. 36 San Miguelito 293.142 0 58 27 0 15 Lima. Michoacán 161.203 0 63 21 0 16 Lima. Zacatecas 124. Independencia 200.908 0 71 13 0 16 Lima.107 0 0 58 0 42 Managua 952. Ventanilla 148.861 0 0 61 0 39 Panama Arraiján 149.365 0 59 28 0 13 Lima.449 0 79 3 0 18 Lima.D.734 0 79 3 0 18 Lima.

130 0 0 100 0 0 Maldonado 137.131 0 0 100 0 0 Trinidad and Tobago Couva/Tabaquite/Talparo 162.303.295 0 100 0 0 0 Tunapuna/Piarco 203. Vincent 106. Lucia 162.779 0 100 0 0 0 Diego Martin 105.157 70 18 0 0 13 St. ANNEX 77 ANNEX H (continued) MSW Disposal Methods for Cities Over 100.227 0 0 100 0 0 Municipio Valencia Edo Carabobo 742.916 80 0 0 0 20 Suriname Greater Paramaribo 287.390 100 0 0 0 0 Montevideo 1. Lucia St.975 0 100 0 0 0 Uruguay Canelones 539.000 Sanitary Controlled Open Water- Urban Other City Landfill Landfill Dump courses Population (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) St. Vincent and the Grenadines St.720 0 100 0 0 0 San Juan/Laventille 157.182 0 100 0 0 0 Venezuela Municipio Guacara Carabobo 142.145 0 100 0 0 0 .

959 52 21 — — — — 27 Jamshedpur 2005 11.985 34 13 — — — — 53 Gangtok 2005 29.610. 2005) Phnom Penh 2002 65 — 4 13 5 1 12 Middle East & North Africa (Al-Yousfi) Egypt Cairo 2002 67 — 18 3 3 2 7 Jordan Amman 2002 55 — 14 13 3 2 13 Saudi Arabia Riyadh 2002 34 — 31 2 3 16 14 Syria Aleppo 2002 59 — 13 12 8 1 8 Tunisia Tunis 2002 68 — 10 11 3 2 6 Yemen Aden 2002 57 — 11 11 3 5 14 South Asia India (CPCB 2005) Agartala 2005 1.354 47 16 — — — — 37 Greater Mumbai 2005 1.55.938 42 23 — — — — 35 Gandhinagar 2005 1.867 64 — 3 4 — 1 28 East Asia & Pacific Cambodia (Kum et al.75.393 35 19 — — — — 45 Amritsar 2005 9.258 47 16 — — — — 37 Faridabad 2005 10.48.713 43 16 — — — — 41 .354 52 22 — — — — 25 Bhubaneswar 2005 6.43.20.484 58 17 — — — — 25 Jaipur 2005 23.135 46 16 — — — — 38 Ahmedabad 2005 35.95.04.022 52 21 — — — — 27 Jabalpur 2005 9.22.74.78.968 49 13 — — — — 38 Itanagar 2005 35.515 57 11 — — — — 32 Chennai 2005 43.645 41 16 — — — — 42 Coimbatore 2005 9.19.75.43.439 50 14 — — — — 35 Bangalore 2005 43.21.32.01.78 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX I MSW Composition Data for Cities Over 100.28.492 60 19 — — — — 21 Indore 2005 14.08.280 54 21 — — — — 25 Allahabad 2005 9.000 Total Region/Country/ Urban Organic Plastic Year Recyclables Paper (%) Glass (%) Metal (%) Other (%) City Population (%) (%) (%) Africa Ghana (Asase 2009) Kumasi 2008 1.575 46 12 — — — — 42 Jammu 2005 3.452 54 16 — — — — 30 Dhanbad 2005 1.998 59 14 — — — — 28 Agra 2005 12.66.06.99.69.674 51 20 — — — — 29 Delhi 2005 1.770 30 22 — — — — 48 Dehradun 2005 4.895 54 23 — — — — 23 Hyderabad 2005 38.09.085 41 12 — — — — 48 Aizwal 2005 2.032 50 13 — — — — 38 Chandigarh 2005 8.37.89.882 50 16 — — — — 34 Daman 2005 35.450 62 17 — — — — 21 Guwahati 2005 8.03.585 54 22 — — — — 24 Imphal 2005 2.30.862 65 14 — — — — 21 Asansol 2005 4.75.26.326 52 22 — — — — 26 Bhopal 2005 14.

444 52 13 — — — — 35 Pondicherry 2005 2.236 40 25 — — — — 35 Panjim 2005 59.066 62 17 — — — — 21 Patna 2005 13.575 57 19 — — — — 23 Kohima 2005 77.51.72.66.984 48 28 — — — — 24 Pune 2005 25.876 51 11 — — — — 38 Lucknow 2005 21.000 Total Region/Country/ Urban Organic Plastic Year Recyclables Paper (%) Glass (%) Metal (%) Other (%) City Population (%) (%) (%) Kanpur 2005 25.32.983 73 14 — — — — 13 Vadodara 2005 13.066 47 16 — — — — 37 Nasik 2005 10.865 50 24 — — — — 26 Port Blair 2005 99.476 42 11 — — — — 47 Ranchi 2005 8.463 72 14 — — — — 14 Simla 2005 1.95.868 55 17 — — — — 27 Meerut 2005 10.51.835 57 11 — — — — 32 Tiruvananthapuram 2005 7.67.473 62 17 — — — — 21 Raipur 2005 6.030 57 23 — — — — 20 Kolkata 2005 45.282 59 17 — — — — 23 Visakhapatnam 2005 9.42.47.772 55 11 — — — — 35 Nagpur 2005 20. ANNEX 79 ANNEX I (continued) MSW Composition Data for Cities Over 100.119 46 27 — — — — 27 Kochi 2005 5.093 51 10 — — — — 39 Shillong 2005 1.927 47 16 — — — — 37 Ludhiana 2005 13.867 63 17 — — — — 20 Silvassa 2005 50.44.06.33.91.85.20.77.38.68.52.467 50 19 — — — — 31 Madurai 2005 9.904 46 24 — — — — 30 Nepal (calculated from Alam 2008) Kathmandu 738.918 45 17 — — — — 38 Vijaywada 2005 8.05.98.82.227 47 15 — — — — 38 Varanasi 2005 10.28.98.337 48 12 — — — — 41 Kavarati 2005 10.440 62 18 — — — — 20 Surat 2005 24.555 43 37 — — — — 20 Srinagar 2005 8.747 51 16 — — — — 32 Rajkot 2005 9.173 68 — 8 — 2 11 11 .

000 0.445.164 24.070 2.000 15.9 1.000 12.400 Bangladesh LI SAR 38.000 0. Rep. The HIC LCR 252.628 0.759 Austria HIC OECD 5.284 Belgium HIC OECD 10.591.006.000 1.681.493 China LMI EAP 511.170 .050 0.000 1.33 49.526.959 6.863 12.000 2.393.288 42.50 795 5.096 5.81 6.1 1.578.729.2 69.257 1.539.549.822 98.23 36.781 124.175 1.662.29 740 4.047.000 1.22 41.000 1.203 Antigua and Barbuda HIC LCR 24.000 17.000 5.566.227 Brazil UMI LCR 144.194.000 44.65 19.1 46.000 8.174 Burundi LI AFR 700.000 0.000 0.934 0.252. LI AFR 18.188 Cuba UMI LCR 8.000 1.523.755 Colombia LMI LCR 29.293.08 14.910.6 9.265.088 3.000 1.40 13.000 760.233.596.000 1.10 712 905.587.596 Czech Republic HIC OECD 7.75 2.000 346.942 0.793 1.4 2.964.336 Australia HIC OECD 16.006.162 Eritrea LI AFR 878.906 2.273 1.68 1.286.1 851 Congo.225.707 2.54 1.000 1.7 13.616 37.470.000 1.947.027.10 630 972. LMI MENA 29.87 356 389.288 1.50 438 7.826 0.115.000 9.735 Congo.75 57.566.5 26.548 1.000 2.15 13.43 16.040.15 10.288 17.000 7.754 2.24 63 69.339 Bahamas.6 1.7 10.13 3.85 80.80 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX J MSW Generation by Country — Current Data and Projections for 2025 Current Available Data 2025 MSW Gen.000 31.000 0.204.450.822 11.000 237. LMI AFR 2.50 1.718 Barbados HIC LCR 92.920 Belize UMI LCR 124.684.096 228.000 10.000 1.000 0.504.000 3.266.658 Estonia HIC ECA 931.000 2.48 4.000 31.689 3.50 137 750.622.03 890 2.850.763.056.5 14.55 384 15.7 6.000 2.759 Costa Rica UMI LCR 2.7 1. Total MSW MSW Gen. Arab Rep.677.368.082 25.460.283.000 35.6 330.172.356 1.000 1.974 Croatia UMI ECA 2.687 1.78 5.260 5.13 8.48 4.000 1.507.7 368 Central African Republic LI AFR 1. Dem.77 6.1 1.018 Burkina Faso LI AFR 2.488.362.000 0.95 27.000 9.179 Cape Verde LMI AFR 274.716 0.000 6.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.668.833.103.000 903.003 Bahrain HIC MENA 574.6 88 Dominican Republic LMI LCR 5.000 0.049 0.000 1.000 2.75 5.46 329 819.018.481.2 2.07 1.000 6.50 137 101.678.6 8.7 1.575.583 El Salvador LMI LCR 3.02 520.831.233.000 2.603 16.288 23.524 0.664 2.596 Chile UMI LCR 13.000 206.813 1.34 10.410 0.333 Botswana UMI AFR 860.000 43.397.894.18 6.657 1.684.194 Canada HIC OECD 21.179.000 1 17.980.390.549.000 1.445.899.000 1.28 6.596 0.000 2.51 1.392 Cyprus HIC ECA 595.000 17.465 Bhutan LMI SAR 225.690 10.634.996.525 0.922 0.384 206.407 Algeria LMI MENA 19.479 8.000 1.000 46.326 9.599.036 1.000 55.000 822.47 1.367 1.25 822 397.000 7.282 1.000 0.3 11.027.959 5.528 0.625.33 13.2 2.289 4.074.3 545 Benin LI AFR 3.147.21 23.8 7.000 0.000 0.577.000 1.000 1.7 728 Bolivia LMI LCR 5.000 4.5 18.288 8.3 554 Bulgaria UMI ECA 5.000 0.000 1.499 Denmark HIC OECD 4.945 8.265.912.000 875.782.096 46.8 18.36 3.224 2.5 66.87 247 526.217.690 Fiji UMI EAP 339.808 Dominica UMI LCR 50.000 4 608 Belarus UMI ECA 7.918 55.342 2.75 438 303.418.285 Ecuador LMI LCR 7.000 2.000 5.914.368.779 1.839 0.151 Cote d'Ivoire LI AFR 9.329 27.113 1.7 1.041 Egypt.231.671 1.970 1.425 107.75 36.45 46.862.30 3.000 22.735.000 5.903.423.057.658 12.000 2.778.000 2.511.855.000 557.287.563.50 9.000 2.000 428.525.907 5.513.551.75 5.000 0.844 Chad LI AFR 2.195 1.269 Comoros LI AFR 161.420 Armenia LMI ECA 1.498 0.03 149.184 0.973.882.960 Brunei Darussalam HIC EAP 282.000 3.000 30.535 Ethiopia LI AFR 12.493 19.000 1.415 0.000 18.908.65 12.062 Cameroon LMI AFR 7.8 83.805 0.977 0.209.435.145 1.547.230 1.957.000 2.10 8.078 Angola LMI AFR 8.8 2.324.2 8.597 0.504.447.742.23 359 1.903 0.011.566.33 1.000 405.000 76.136.77 1.7 1. Rep.000 6.000 48.266.335 1.000 426.274.53 1.8 2.722.000 6.37 40.328 2.356 26.726.033 2.000 2.000 0.3 151 Argentina UMI LCR 33. Total MSW Income Country Region Total Urban eration Per Generation Total Urban eration Per Generation Level Population Capita (kg/ (tonnes/ Population Population Capita (kg/ (tonnes/day) capita/day) day) capita/day) Albania LMI ECA 1.447 0.000 0.7 4.699 14.000 1.000 152.000 526.973.000 1.024.000 2.

548.000 27.324 2.103 Nepal LI SAR 3.604 1.197.227.000 1.000 57.148 1.623.641 1.054 Grenada UMI LCR 31.14 1.000 1.077.030 5.12 10.000 1.000 61.353.50 1.000 233.833.219.295 Georgia LMI ECA 2.000 5.483 Mexico UMI LCR 79.120 2.890 8.8 9.680.683.014 37.33 1.206 2.464.977.000 7.079.288.6 2.538 Malta HIC MENA 384.000 8.154 Latvia UMI ECA 1.45 4.698 3.589 1.067 Gambia LI AFR 822.959 8.9 51.000 0.180 1.850.179.85 21.816 0.71 144.064 0.000 86.176.000 2.698 0.31 904 569.234 0.644 271.5 805 Haiti LI LCR 3.275.233 12.994.000 178.6 40.000 1.5 7.760 2.952.8 4.226.614.000 1.193.522 0.2 1.476.268 Lesotho LMI AFR 461.45 521 1.527.3 8.447.493.918 33.12 427 38.09 1.000 3.102.195 1.24 99.403 1.809 1.05 126.000 0.755.713.000 42.000 2.534 20.85 151.263 1.001.000 1.000 3.5 9.753.890 0.972 1.769.706.974 0.659.639 Indonesia LMI EAP 117.000 2.296 1. Total MSW Income Country Region Total Urban eration Per Generation Total Urban eration Per Generation Level Population Capita (kg/ (tonnes/ Population Population Capita (kg/ (tonnes/day) capita/day) day) capita/day) Finland HIC OECD 3.46 23.66 904 3.950 2.95 1.000 1.836 4.895.000 3.722.000 535.000 24.000 19.7 534 India LMI SAR 321.000 10.544.956 Guyana LMI LCR 215.4 58.000 2.000 102.99 13.158 Ireland HIC OECD 2.85 4.000 1.000 0.000 14.867 Morocco LMI MENA 15.271 0.456.000 8.987.000 2 107.000 2.000 0.397 49.466 121.227.341.448. China HIC EAP 466.140 Lebanon UMI MENA 3.000 1.022 Iceland HIC OECD 280.256.305.301.16 7.832.736 Lao PDR LI EAP 1.930.000 850. Islamic Rep.8 680 Lithuania UMI ECA 2.236.187.52 61.000 66.000 11.000 0.783.486.805.000 1.30 2.993.695.50 356 2.000 40. ANNEX 81 ANNEX J (continued) MSW Generation by Country — Current Data and Projections for 2025 Current Available Data 2025 MSW Gen.06 1.000 1.342 3.209 0.11 127.011.000 6.425 2.769.907 0.000 8.945.857 Greece HIC OECD 6.112.00 10.000 2.000 1.534 0.474 3.569 1.72 15.055.954.991 France HIC OECD 47.247 Myanmar LI EAP 12.00 3.162 1.318 Gabon UMI AFR 1.7 146.000 53.655 Maldives LMI SAR 70.000 1.03 1.816 2.000 2.000 1.432 Kenya LI AFR 6.4 11.275.989 1.85 44.58 9.946 5.600 2.1 16.389 Mozambique LI AFR 7.244.816 80.1 7.70 1.720.151 21.65 2.904 3.000 0.374.429.000 3.92 90.10 2.00 13.041 Macao.000 473.341.000 230.1 4.000 538.000 7.682.000 1.560.478.692 Israel HIC MENA 5.000 0.769 1.530.114 0.072.926 Malaysia UMI EAP 14.000 0.908.000 6.000 0.47 685 535.588 0.134 0.75 179 Mongolia LMI EAP 1.350.000 1.000 1.5 3.496 Kuwait HIC MENA 2.014 124.000 41.000 1.675 0.855.305.000 1.733.962 Italy HIC OECD 39.305.316.000 4 15.216 2.48 175 411.000 0.203.000 0.776 2.398 1.965.616 55.499 11.560 Japan HIC OECD 84.464.926.460.205.019.466 19.772.776.969 0.7 376. China HIC EAP 6.865.8 1.012 Namibia LMI AFR 708.05 86.610 Hungary HIC OECD 6.000 1.192.75 1.493.197 88.731. South HIC OECD 38.550.45 2.979 Hong Kong.23 89.18 3.485 Malawi LI AFR 2.734 29.211. FYR LMI ECA 1.000 0.406.982 Jordan LMI MENA 3.69 3.000 23.615.000 3.988.934.3 92 Guatemala LMI LCR 5.000 0.000 1.499.916.000 2 14.353.9 1.44 5. Total MSW MSW Gen.921 Iran.7 1.504 1.000 2 832 Mauritania LI AFR 1.151 683.2 1.95 8.549.260 5.13 7.24 48.510 0.237.370.385 .027.000 7.000 2.653.784.633 Ghana LI AFR 11.9 1.000 11.713.966.000 4.000 1.30 1.171 Korea.56 438 337.330.301 5.342 7.2 513 Mali LI AFR 3.75 936 Macedonia.000 674.520 Jamaica UMI LCR 1.589.096 58.92 12.250 0.029.000 0.000 16.203 Germany HIC OECD 60.562 1.564.967 2.1 12.249 1.04 4.258 1.139 2.938.000 3 10.847.7 7.094 0.389 Madagascar LI AFR 4.000 31.000 8.904 9.726.52 21.000 1.052 28.158.524.000 2.589.000 416.493 65.7 7.698.000 2 15.50 230 2.534.18 247 2.000 0.000 2 22.144.717.290 Luxembourg HIC OECD 390.50 603 4.000 314.000 2.000 0.110 9.762 Mauritius UMI AFR 519.954.53 438 2.152 Honduras LMI LCR 2.163 1.78 685 431.71 85 108.000 2 16.700 1.6 10.900. LMI MENA 46.272.000 2.34 109.80 3.000 0.

501.71 82 112.242.878.239 1.5 150 Sierra Leone LI AFR 2.983 0. Vincent and the UMI LCR 48.000 1.720.9 77.000 4 92 St.6 3.000 0.388.830 Philippines LMI EAP 58.398.000 1.593.000 1.164 5.467 Suriname UMI LCR 343.797.143 1.992.104.255 1.000 34.008.205 2.4 35.424 Senegal LI AFR 4.000 2.000 1.05 109.000 3.9 140 Saudi Arabia HIC MENA 15.000 0.000 1.52 1.000 3.899.104.1 78.000 64.442 1.082 19.091 0.129.000 291000 10 2.205 5.49 1.000 69.000 2 135.000 5.953.740 34.860.438 4.21 13.05 32.7 1.000 4 732 South Africa UMI AFR 26.214 2.629.93 100.187 Slovak Republic HIC OECD 3.494.178.36 466 482.2 27.019 0.992 4.30 20.000 54.85 3.240 1.616 10.783.49 44 216.989.000 4 256 St.959 210.75 4.846.102.830.956.980 0.386.453.250.000 1.479 8.052.021 Syrian Arab Republic LMI MENA 9.600.000 2.331 1.962 Turkmenistan LMI ECA 2.320 0.229.000 1.000 4.88 20.069 5.000 1.329 Tanzania LI AFR 9.959.027 6.566 Thailand LMI EAP 22.000 183.320 St.029.402 0.438 17.50 29.45 17.925.89 1.000 8.000 0.000 155.5 130 Trinidad and Tobago HIC LCR 144.643 Serbia UMI ECA 3.000 1.299 0.490.162 3.404 0.85 354 Sweden HIC OECD 7.848.713 Tajikistan LI ECA 1.000 3.52 2.220.187.717 Niger LI AFR 2.30 219 705.068.301 89.000 1.000 4.854.119 4.653.8 101.000 417.76 39.932 12.259 0.673 Togo LI AFR 2.036.56 40.000 14.573.000 104.000 11.000 1.15 3.245 Turkey UMI ECA 48.000 1.000 5.438 224.85 128 Grenadines Sudan LMI AFR 12.109.7 28.8 9.584. Total MSW MSW Gen.000 2.519.941 0.389.000 1.267.000 3.000 67.315 115.042.3 14.981.862 1.10 15.45 82 61.148.12 27.300.000 1.228.95 56.21 2.000 4 15.000 958.329 7.041 9.85 4.137 46.960.142 3.082 5.170.81 4.485.105 Seychelles UMI AFR 43.85 15.648.478.172 2.000 8.673 0.066.063.000 1.197.10 3.110 0.1 31.061.000 2.000 23.193.350 Peru LMI LCR 18.000 4.000 5.65 5.063.244 Panama UMI LCR 2.780 1.073.625 0.82 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX J (continued) MSW Generation by Country — Current Data and Projections for 2025 Current Available Data 2025 MSW Gen.280 Slovenia HIC ECA 986.771 Switzerland HIC OECD 5.776 Poland UMI ECA 23.206 New Zealand HIC OECD 3.000 2.000 1.082 1.7 50.400 0.000 0.333 0.000 1.000 8.25 4.147 3.256 Sao Tome and Principe LI AFR 88.51 137 1.192 1.000 389.712.000 29.693.890.076 Rwanda LI AFR 1.000 6.639.000 21.000 30.85 3. Lucia UMI LCR 44.04 12.000 5.410 5.000 23.000 1.236.85 7.000 1.737 1.000 0.929.398 0.886 Qatar HIC MENA 759.3 9.68 13.510 1.70 1.038.130 1.26 2.000 29.000 7.000 86.830.096.45 904 8.000 0.77 86.781 0.525.98 2.000 2.6 5.52 822 15.654.000 2 72.623.21 1.439.557.000 1.000 126.999.000 1.926 Sri Lanka LMI SAR 2.80 10.98 129 94.000 2.418.614.425 52.35 192 195.000 60.061.15 10.425 59.949.000 0.37 4.678.84 50.909.549 Tonga LMI EAP 22.831.165 1.7 1.000 37.073 2.000 0.49 7.000 3.40 2.13 72.127 Nigeria LI AFR 73.687 Nicaragua LMI LCR 2.000 0.15 15.000 3 12.584.662.6 622 Swaziland LMI AFR 270.000 1.390.029.000 37.000 0.814.026.293 4.162.37 12.774.842 2.79 10.840 0.61 12.910 Tunisia LMI MENA 6.000 96.000 25.21 630 8.085 Russian Federation UMI ECA 107.068 20.000 16.25 120.299 1.000 3.612.233 9.921.61 14.839.945 16.605.503.55 11.356 .357 Singapore HIC EAP 4.33 1.629 Solomon Islands LI EAP 50.000 1.401.000 3.308.577 1.493 2.000 36.068 26.941.2 3. Total MSW Income Country Region Total Urban eration Per Generation Total Urban eration Per Generation Level Population Capita (kg/ (tonnes/ Population Population Capita (kg/ (tonnes/day) capita/day) day) capita/day) Netherlands HIC OECD 13.00 53.777 Paraguay LMI LCR 3.329 9.630 Oman HIC MENA 1.205 0.79 3.000 0.146 Spain HIC OECD 33.5 6.00 18.337.764.123 7.05 6.700.027 128.000 5.162.452 68.493 27.352.267.883 Portugal HIC OECD 6.400 1.000 1.075.70 82 125.803.812 Romania UMI ECA 11.307 Norway HIC OECD 3.500 2. Kitts and Nevis UMI LCR 15.063 0.630 36.645 14.105 Pakistan LI SAR 60.300.328.634.978.661.014 1.000 2.

85 110.969.45 192.06 1.336 1.000 2.77 567.380 ECA 19 227 1.012.000 2 10.411 1.192 6.78 1.85 441.586 888 619 1.42 6.000 59.774 Zimbabwe LI AFR 4.342.65 6.43 369.140 0.862.357.000 0.286 1.713.42 6.255 7.34 1.000 7.272 Lower Middle Income 42 1.417 SAR 7 426 0.342 65. RB UMI LCR 22.539.000 0.039 High Income 46 774 2.293 0.179 54.011 2. Total MSW Income Country Region Total Urban eration Per Generation Total Urban eration Per Generation Level Population Capita (kg/ (tonnes/ Population Population Capita (kg/ (tonnes/day) capita/day) day) capita/day) Uganda LI AFR 3.532.526.982 1.28 110 328.333.648 4.07 1.000 3 339 Venezuela.637 676 0.21 842 16.001.032 842 2.000 40.705 .059.840 EAP 17 777 0.532.000 1.5 51.909 Zambia LI AFR 4.089 Vietnam LI EAP 24.010.48 354.392 MENA 16 162 1.59 987.321 4.000 3.000 0.95 738.811 LCR 33 400 1.545 682 466 1.53 2.000 113.000 9.11 329 3.373.507 35.068 106.356 15.86 584.025.3 701.46 35.478.161 0.07 173.66 4.000 1.648 4.6 2.55 3.411.000 34.802 1.505.742.618.320 OECD 27 729 2.091.15 1.287 1.865.52 1.230 1.19 3.16 665.19 3.389 339 240 1.081 1.58 624.124 1.112 912 2.000 Vanuatu LMI EAP 33.000 1.09 437.287 1.12 254.14 25.705 Summary by Region Current Available Data Projections for 2025 Number of Urban MSW Generation Projected Population Projected Urban MSW Generation Region Countries Total Urban Included Population Per Capita (kg/ Total Per Capita (kg/ Total (tonnes/ (millions) Total (millions) Urban (millions) capita/day) (tonnes/day) capita/day) day) AFR 42 261 0.000 6.555 0.313 United Arab Emirates HIC MENA 2.545 Total 161 2.255 7.566.277 Summary by Income Level Current Available Data Projections for 2025 Number of Total Urban Urban MSW Generation Projected Population Projected Urban MSW Generation Income Level Countries Population Per Capita Total Total Population Urban Population Per Capita Total Included (millions) (kg/capita/day) (tonnes/day) (millions) (millions) (kg/capita/day) (tonnes/day) Lower Income 38 343 0.430 3.60 204.069.738.000 5.092.700 354.548. ANNEX 83 ANNEX J (continued) MSW Generation by Country — Current Data and Projections for 2025 Current Available Data 2025 MSW Gen.120 1.011.080 1. Total MSW MSW Gen.153 518 0.000 0.939 734 0.79 97.069.26 2.7 5.450.268.000 305.959 2.649.539.393 2.515 United States HIC OECD 241.080 1.65 169.982 1.972.709 Uruguay UMI LCR 3.708 0.983 1.56 728.879.546 1.13 1.190.930.804 Upper Middle Income 35 572 1.545 379 257 1.184 United Kingdom HIC OECD 54.8 72.590 Total 161 2.

LMI MENA 30-95 U El Salvador LMI LCR 71 T Estonia HIC ECA 79 T Finland HIC OECD 100 T France HIC OECD 100 T Georgia LMI ECA 60 T Germany HIC OECD 100 T Ghana LI AFR 85 U Greece HIC OECD 100 T Grenada UMI LCR 100 T Guatemala LMI LCR 72 T Guyana LMI LCR 89 T Haiti LI LCR 11 T Honduras LMI LCR 68 T Hong Kong. Arab Rep. South HIC OECD 99 T Latvia UMI ECA 50 T Lebanon UMI MENA 100 U Luxembourg HIC OECD 100 T .84 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX K MSW Collection Rates by Country Country Income Region Collection (%) Urban/Total Albania LMI ECA 77 T Algeria UMI MENA 92 U Andorra HIC OECD 100 T Antigua and Barbuda HIC LCR 95 T Armenia LMI ECA 80 T Austria HIC OECD 100 T Belarus UMI ECA 100 T Belgium HIC OECD 100 T Belize LMI LCR 50 T Benin LI AFR 23 T Brazil UMI LCR 83 T Bulgaria UMI ECA 81 T Cambodia LI EAP 75 U Canada HIC OECD 99 T Colombia UMI LCR 98 T Comoros LI AFR 20 T Costa Rica UMI LCR 74 T Croatia HIC ECA 92 T Cuba UMI LCR 76 T Czech Republic HIC OECD 100 T Denmark HIC OECD 100 T Dominica UMI LCR 94 T Dominican Republic UMI LCR 69 T Ecuador LMI LCR 81 T Egypt. China HIC EAP 100 T Hungary HIC OECD 90 T Iceland HIC OECD 100 T Indonesia LMI EAP 80 U Iraq LMI MENA 56 T Ireland HIC OECD 76 T Italy HIC OECD 100 T Jamaica UMI LCR 62 T Japan HIC OECD 100 T Jordan LMI MENA 95+ U Korea.

China HIC EAP 100 T Madagascar LI AFR 18 T Mali LI AFR 40 T Malta HIC MENA 100 T Marshall Islands LMI EAP 60 T Mauritius UMI AFR 98 T Mexico UMI LCR 91 T Monaco HIC OECD 100 T Morocco LMI MENA 72-100 T Nepal LI SAR 94 U Netherlands HIC OECD 100 T Nicaragua LMI LCR 73 T Norway HIC OECD 99 T Panama UMI LCR 77 T Paraguay LMI LCR 51 T Peru UMI LCR 74 T Portugal HIC OECD 100 T Romania UMI ECA 90 T Senegal LI AFR 21 T Serbia UMI ECA 65 T Seychelles UMI AFR 95 T Sierra Leone LI AFR 33-55 U Singapore HIC EAP 100 T Slovak Republic HIC OECD 100 T Slovenia HIC ECA 93 T St. Kitts and Nevis UMI LCR 98 T St. Vincent and the Grenadines UMI LCR 91 T Suriname UMI LCR 80 T Sweden HIC OECD 100 T Switzerland HIC OECD 99 T Syrian Arab Republic LMI MENA 80 U Tanzania LI AFR 48 U Trinidad and Tobago HIC LCR 100 T Tunisia LMI MENA 95 U Turkey UMI ECA 77 T Uganda LI AFR 39 U United Kingdom HIC OECD 100 T United States HIC OECD 100 T Uruguay UMI LCR 86 T Venezuela. Lucia UMI LCR 100 T St. ANNEX 85 ANNEX K (continued) MSW Collection Rates by Country Country Income Region Collection (%) Urban/Total Macao. RB UMI LCR 86 T West Bank and Gaza LMI MENA 85 U Zambia LI AFR 20 T .

00 Total 95 .70 55.62 55.00 Total 95 Summary by Region Number MSW Collection (%) Region of Countries Included Lower Limit Upper Limit AFR 12 17.60 95+ OECD 26 76.00 100.86 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX K (continued) MSW Collection Rates by Country Summary by Income Level Number MSW Collection (%) Income Level of Countries Included Lower Limit Upper Limit Lower Income 13 10.00 MENA 10 55.00 ECA 12 50.00 100.00 100.00 EAP 6 60.62 100.00 Lower Middle Income 20 50.00 SAR 1 94.00 100.00 100.00 LCR 28 10.20 95+ Upper Middle Income 27 50.00 High Income 35 76.

10 Cambodia LI EAP 100.20 Cuba UMI LCR — 100.24 1.48 26.66 — 30.00 — — 5.40 — 27.95 — 0.80 — — Cyprus HIC ECA — 87. China2 HIC EAP — 21 — — — 100 Madagascar2 LI AFR — 97 4 — — — Malta HIC MENA — 88 — — — 13 Marshall Islands LMI EAP — — 6 31 — 63 Mauritius UMI AFR — 91 — 2 — — Mexico UMI LCR — 97 — 3 — — Monaco4 HIC OECD — 27 — 4 — 132 Morocco LMI MENA 95 1 — 4 — — Netherlands HIC OECD — 2 23 25 32 17 New Zealand HIC OECD — 85 — 15 — — Nicaragua LMI LCR 34 28 — — — 38 .54 21.00 — — — Belgium HIC OECD — 11.10 4.57 22.10 34.00 — — Canada HIC OECD — — 12.00 46.20 1.72 26.20 — — — 12.10 0.80 Czech Republic HIC OECD — 79.90 — — — 17.00 11.57 54.75 44.03 Dominica UMI LCR — 100.00 — — Antigua and HIC LCR 99.74 Denmark HIC OECD — 5. ANNEX 87 ANNEX L MSW Disposal Methods by Country Landfills Compost Recycled Country Income Region Dumps (%) WTE (%) Other (%) (%) (%) (%) Algeria UMI MNA 96.37 71.34 — — Austria HIC OECD — 6.00 — — — — — Cameroon LMI AFR 95.32 — Belize LMI LCR — 100.00 1.90 2.80 0.00 4.00 2. South HIC OECD — 36 — 49 14 — Kyrgyz Republic LI ECA — 100 — — — — Latvia UMI ECA 60 40 — — — — Lebanon UMI MENA 37 46 8 8 — 1 Lithuania UMI ECA — 44 — 4 2 50 Luxembourg HIC OECD — 19 19 23 39 — Macao.09 15.00 — — — — Greece HIC OECD — 92 — 8 — — Grenada UMI LCR — 90 — — — 10 Guatemala LMI LCR — 22 — — — 78 Guyana LMI LCR 37 59 — — — 4 Haiti LI LCR 24 — — — — 76 Hong Kong.28 25.00 — — — — Colombia UMI LCR 54.90 Belarus UMI ECA — 96.04 0.00 — — — — Australia HIC OECD — 69.97 1.27 13.39 Croatia HIC ECA — 69.78 — 60.78 3.29 — 5.77 31.00 — — — — Costa Rica UMI LCR 22.00 — — — — Bulgaria UMI ECA — 82.74 Chile UMI LCR — 100. China HIC EAP — 55 — 45 — — Hungary HIC OECD — 90 1 3 6 0 Iceland2 HIC OECD — 72 9 16 9 — Ireland HIC OECD — 66 — 34 — — Israel HIC MENA — 90 — 10 — — Italy HIC OECD — 54 33 — 12 — Jamaica UMI LCR — 100 — — — — Japan HIC OECD — 3 — 17 74 6 Jordan3 LMI MENA — 85 — — — 15 Korea.00 — — Barbuda Armenia LMI ECA — 100.50 0.

such as incineration and composting. .88 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX L (continued) MSW Disposal Methods by Country Landfills Compost Recycled Country Income Region Dumps (%) WTE (%) Other (%) (%) (%) (%) Niger LI AFR — 64 — 4 — 32 Norway HIC OECD — 26 15 34 25 0 Panama UMI LCR 20 56 — — — 24 Paraguay LMI LCR 42 44 — — — 14 Peru UMI LCR 19 66 — — — 15 Poland UMI ECA — 92 3 4 0 — Portugal5 HIC OECD — 64 6 9 21 — Romania UMI ECA — 75 — — — 25 Singapore6 HIC EAP — 15 — 47 — 49 Slovak Republic HIC OECD — 78 1 1 12 7 Slovenia HIC ECA — 86 — — — 14 Spain HIC OECD — 52 33 9 7 — St. Vincent and UMI LCR — 78 — — — 22 the Grenadines Suriname UMI LCR 100 — — — — 0 Sweden HIC OECD — 5 10 34 50 1 Switzerland HIC OECD — 1 16 34 50 — Syrian Arab LMI MENA >60 <25 <5 <15 — — Republic Thailand LMI EAP — — — 14 — 85 Trinidad and HIC LCR 6 — — — 94 Tobago Tunisia LMI MENA 45 50 0 5 — — Turkey UMI ECA 66 30 1 — 0 3 Uganda LI AFR — 100 — — — — United Kingdom HIC OECD — 64 9 17 8 1 United States HIC OECD — 54 8 24 14 — Uruguay UMI LCR 32 3 — — — 66 Venezuela. 4. other includes wastes imported from France for incineration with energy recovery. 3. such as recycling and composting plants. see Annex C. are landfilled. MSW includes industrial waste from manufacturing industries. 1. Kitts and UMI LCR — 100 — — — — Nevis St. Percentages may not add up to 100 because residues of some treatments. Lucia UMI LCR — 70 — — — 30 St. Recycled amount refers to both recycled and composted waste. where the waste is classfied and then sent to different destinations. Landfill includes non-controlled dumping sites. landfill includes ash from incineration. 2. Landfilling refers to all waste disposed on land. 5. All waste is taken to landfills. 6. RB UMI LCR 59 — — — — 41 West Bank and LMI MENA 69 30 — 1 — — Gaza NOTES: For sources and year of data.

ANNEX 89 ANNEX L (continued) MSW Disposal Methods by Country Summary by Income Level Income Level Number of Countries Included Lower Income 7 Lower Middle Income 17 Upper Middle Income 27 High Income 39 Total 90 Summary by Region Region Number of Countries Included AFR 6 EAP 6 ECA 13 LCR 27 MENA 10 OECD 0 SAR 28 Total 90 .

Islamic Rep. China HIC EAP 38 26 19 3 2 12 Hungary HIC OECD 29 15 17 2 2 35 Iceland HIC OECD 26 26 17 4 3 24 India LMI SAR 35 3 2 1 — 59 Indonesia LMI EAP 62 6 10 9 8 4 Iran. LMI MENA 43 22 11 2 9 13 Ireland HIC OECD 25 31 11 5 4 23 Israel HIC MENA 40 25 13 3 3 16 Italy HIC OECD 29 28 5 13 2 22 Jamaica UMI LCR 57 13 18 5 4 3 Japan HIC OECD 26 46 9 7 8 12 . LMI MENA 60 10 12 3 2 13 Ethiopia LI AFR 88 4 2 1 1 4 Fiji UMI EAP 68 15 8 3 3 4 Finland HIC OECD 33 40 10 5 5 7 France HIC OECD 32 20 9 10 3 26 Gambia LI AFR 35 10 — 2 2 51 Georgia LMI ECA 39 34 3 3 5 16 Germany HIC OECD 14 34 22 12 5 12 Ghana LI AFR 64 3 4 — 1 28 Greece HIC OECD 47 20 9 5 5 16 Guatemala LMI LCR 44 18 13 5 4 16 Guinea LI AFR 58 9 4 1 1 27 Guyana LMI LCR 49 24 10 2 2 12 Hong Kong. Arab Rep.90 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX M MSW Composition by Country Income Country Region Organic (%) Paper (%) Plastic (%) Glass (%) Metal (%) Other (%) Level Albania LMI ECA 38 10 8 5 5 34 Algeria UMI MENA 70 10 5 1 2 12 Andorra HIC OECD 19 26 14 11 3 27 Argentina UMI LCR 40 24 14 5 2 15 Armenia LMI ECA 51 12 10 9 5 14 Australia HIC OECD 47 23 4 7 5 13 Austria HIC OECD 35 22 11 8 5 19 Bangladesh LI SAR 71 5 7 — — 16 Belarus UMI ECA 29 28 10 13 7 13 Belgium HIC OECD 39 17 5 7 3 29 Belize LMI LCR 60 20 5 5 5 5 Benin LI AFR 52 3 7 2 2 1 Bhutan LMI SAR 58 17 13 4 1 7 Bolivia LMI LCR 24 6 8 2 1 59 Brazil UMI LCR 61 15 15 3 2 5 Brunei Darussalam HIC EAP 44 22 2 4 5 13 Cambodia LI EAP 55 3 10 8 7 17 Cameroon LMI AFR 48 4 5 4 5 35 Canada HIC OECD 24 47 3 6 13 8 Chile UMI LCR 50 19 10 2 2 4 Colombia UMI LCR 54 11 10 5 2 18 Costa Rica UMI LCR 50 21 18 2 2 7 Croatia HIC ECA 46 20 12 7 4 11 Cuba UMI LCR 69 12 10 5 2 3 Cyprus HIC ECA 38 27 11 1 9 13 Czech Republic HIC OECD 18 8 4 4 2 63 Denmark HIC OECD 29 27 1 5 6 32 Dominican Republic UMI LCR 39 14 36 1 1 10 Egypt.

FYR UMI ECA 20 24 11 5 3 37 Madagascar LI AFR 52 4 1 1 1 41 Malaysia UMI EAP 62 7 12 3 6 10 Mali LI AFR 18 4 2 1 4 1 Marshall Islands LMI EAP 20 15 15 5 20 22 Mauritius UMI AFR 70 12 9 2 3 4 Mexico UMI LCR 51 15 6 6 3 18 Morocco LMI MENA 69 19 4 4 3 2 Mozambique LI AFR 69 12 10 3 2 4 Myanmar LI EAP 54 8 16 7 8 7 Nepal LI SAR 80 7 3 3 1 7 Netherlands HIC OECD 35 26 19 4 4 12 New Zealand HIC OECD 56 21 8 3 7 5 Niger LI AFR 38 2 2 — 1 57 Nigeria LMI AFR 57 11 18 5 5 4 Norway HIC OECD 30 33 9 4 4 20 Pakistan LMI SAR 67 5 18 2 — 7 Panama UMI LCR 44 25 11 8 5 7 Peru UMI LCR 55 7 4 3 2 28 Philippines LMI EAP 41 19 14 3 5 18 Poland UMI ECA 38 10 10 12 8 23 Portugal HIC OECD 34 21 11 7 4 23 Romania UMI ECA 46 11 3 11 5 24 Senegal LI AFR 44 10 3 1 3 39 Serbia UMI ECA 5 37 12 10 5 31 Sierra Leone LI AFR 85 — — — — 15 Singapore HIC EAP 44 28 12 4 5 7 Slovak Republic HIC OECD 38 13 7 8 3 31 Solomon Islands LMI EAP 65 6 17 5 6 2 Spain HIC OECD 49 21 12 8 4 7 Sri Lanka LMI SAR 76 11 6 1 1 5 St. South HIC OECD 28 24 8 5 7 28 Lao PDR LI EAP 46 6 10 8 12 21 Latvia UMI ECA 57 — — — — 43 Lebanon UMI MENA 63 18 7 5 3 4 Liberia LI AFR 43 10 13 1 2 31 Luxembourg HIC OECD 45 22 1 12 4 16 Macao. ANNEX 91 ANNEX M (continued) MSW Composition by Country Income Country Region Organic (%) Paper (%) Plastic (%) Glass (%) Metal (%) Other (%) Level Jordan LMI MENA 62 11 16 2 2 6 Korea. China HIC EAP 4 4 24 4 1 63 Macedonia. Vincent and the Grenadines UMI LCR 34 32 12 8 6 8 Sweden HIC OECD — 68 2 11 2 17 Switzerland HIC OECD 29 20 15 4 3 29 Syrian Arab Republic LMI MENA 65 10 12 4 2 7 Thailand LMI EAP 48 15 14 5 4 14 Togo LI AFR 46 4 10 2 2 35 Tonga LMI EAP 47 31 5 3 8 5 Trinidad and Tobago HIC LCR 14 32 24 3 16 12 Tunisia LMI MENA 68 9 11 2 4 6 Turkey UMI ECA 40-65 7-18 5-14 2-6 1-6 7-24 Uganda LI AFR 78 3 1 1 2 16 United States HIC OECD 25 34 12 5 8 16 Uruguay UMI LCR 54 20 11 3 5 8 .

see Annex C. Summary by Income Level Number of Organic (%) Paper (%) Plastic (%) Glass (%) Metal (%) Other (%) Income Level Countries Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Included Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Lower Income 22 18 88 2 21 1 20 1 8 1 12 1 57 Lower Middle 27 20 76 3 34 2 18 1 9 1 20 2 59 Income Upper Middle 25 5 70 7 37 3 36 1 13 1 8 3 43 Income High Income 35 4 56 4 68 1 24 1 13 1 16 5 63 Total 109 Summary by Region Number of Organic (%) Paper (%) Plastic (%) Glass (%) Metal (%) Other (%) Region Countries Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Included Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit AFR 19 18 88 2 21 1 20 1 5 1 5 1 57 EAP 17 4 71 2 31 2 24 3 9 1 20 2 63 ECA 12 5 65 10 37 3 12 1 13 3 9 11 43 LCR 18 14 69 6 32 4 36 1 8 1 16 3 59 MENA 10 40 70 9 25 4 16 1 5 2 9 2 16 OECD 6 14 56 8 68 1 22 2 13 2 13 5 63 SAR 27 35 80 3 17 2 18 1 4 1 1 5 59 Total 109 .92 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX M (continued) MSW Composition by Country Income Country Region Organic (%) Paper (%) Plastic (%) Glass (%) Metal (%) Other (%) Level Vanuatu LMI EAP 71 11 8 3 4 3 Vietnam LI EAP 60 2 16 7 6 9 West Bank and Gaza LMI MENA 61 14 7 3 2 13 Zambia LI AFR 50 5 5 2 2 37 Zimbabwe LI AFR 40 21 20 4 4 11 NOTE: For sources and year of data.

9 2.3 1.8 Central America 43.5 6 2. .9 2.4 1 3 1 Europe Eastern Europe 30.1 18 9.6 1.7 10.3 4 16.5 4.5 2.7 3.8 6.2 3.5 9.2 6.7 2.9 23.6 10 14.9 7. ANNEX 93 ANNEX N IPCC Classification of MSW Composition Paper/ Food Rubber/ Region Card.4 South-Central Asia 40.9 1.6 0.3 11.8 2.5 NOTES: 1.8 7.7 1.3 Western Asia & Middle 41.7 2.6 Middle Africa 43.5 21.7 3.9 17 2.2 18.2 5.9 0.9 3.2 3.9 7.9 17 10. Some regions may not have data for some waste types .3 13 Caribbean 46.7 7 1.4 East Africa Eastern Africa 53.3 7.1 5.8 6.7 12.1 21.3 2.4 5.9 9.1 7.5 12. partly incomplete composition data.1 4.6 3.7 0.5 1 14.5 4.5 2 1.5 America North America 33.6 6.5 4.3 2.7 1.8 2.3 11.8 4.5 Northern Africa 51.6 Western Europe 24.6 10 2 13 7 8 Southern Europe 36.4 9.4 8. 2.1 16.2 27. The region-specific values are calculated from national.5 1.5 4.9 17.5 3. The percentages given may therefore not add up to 100%.8 3.5 Southern Africa 23 25 15 Western Africa 40.5 2.9 South-Eastern Asia 43.7 13.5 2 1.8 30.8 13. Wood Textiles Plastic Metal Glass Other Waste Leather board Asia Eastern Asia 26.5 11 Oceania Australia & New Zealand 36 30 24 Rest of Oceania 67.8 6.8 2.5 3.9 9.6 Northern Europe 23.5 3.9 5 5.blanks in the table represent missing data.5 2 2.5 0.2 3.4 6.3 South America 44.6 6.4 3. Data are based on weight of wet waste of MSW without industrial waste at generation around year 2000.8 3.1 1.4 16.

education. in addition to enhancing government accountability to the public. driven by cities themselves. facilitate capacity building. Ontario M5S 1T9 Canada Tel + 416-966-2368 Fax +416-966-0478 www. city managers and the public will be able to monitor the performance of their cities over time based on a core set of indicators. Through the collection and analysis of city data in a comparative format and data domain. The pace of change within and among cities is increasing. So too will the day-to-day challenges of garbage collection. The Global City Indicators Program was initiated by the World Bank through funding from the Government of Japan. A Board of Directors and an Advisory Board oversee the Global City Indicators Facility and provide technical and advisory support to the Facility. The Global City Indicators Program is run by the Global City Indicators Facility based at the University of Toronto. though the city government may have little direct control on these activities). and improve their performance and quality of life. Suite 1100 Toronto. and academia. GCIP assists cities in providing support to decision makers in making informed policy decisions.utoronto. and the creation and maintenance of an inclusive and peaceful society. verifying. capture trends and developments. and support cities in becoming global partners. and facilitating the provision of water. report. will all need to be met through the responses of cities.94 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES – KNOWLEDGE PAPERS ANNEX O The Global City Indicators Program No single standard or comprehensive system to measure and monitor city performance and urban quality of life exists today.cityindicators. such as poverty reduction. which manages the development of indicators and assists cities in joining the Program. The Global City Indicators Program (GCIP) is a decentralized. The Global City Indicators Program is organized into two broad categories: city services (which includes services typically provided by city governments and other entities) and quality of life (which includes critical contributors to overall quality of life. climate change. please contact the Global City Indicators Facility at: 170 Bloor Street West.org cityindicators@daniels. Today’s big challenges. Similar to a Wikipedia approach. the Global City Indicators Program is a dynamic web-based resource (www. The Boards are made up of representatives from cities. Indicators need to be anchored on baseline data and need to be sufficiently broad to capture social and economic aspects of urban development. For more information. The two categories are structured around 18 themes. elected officials. and the myriad of other services that make life more productive and enjoyable.org) that allows participating cities across the world to standardize the collection of their indicators and analyze and share the results and best practices on service delivery and quality of life. electricity. The Global City Indicators Program. and share best practices through an easy-to-use web portal. economic development. reporting. Managing cities effectively and efficiently is critical and becoming more complex as population growth and economic development are taking place in urban areas. The Global City Indicators Program process encompasses monitoring. responding to the house on fire and larger disasters.ca . fills this important gap. and amending the indicators. international organizations. health care. Standardized indica- tors are essential in order to measure the performance of cities.cityindicators. city-led initiative that enables cities to measure.

2006.in/oldwebsite/ Asase.” Waste Management 29:1971-1981. mental Protection. .com/content_print.org (accessed October 2009). African Cities Environment Reports on the Internet. L. J.europa. Environmental Council of Zambia. Waste Concern. 2006a. Hasan. S. Am. Case Study — Region 8 — Bucharest – Ilfov. October 10 . Fourth National DC. collection and transportation of municipal solid waste — A case City of Cape Town. 2001. J. and Kumasi.” Available at: http://www. Washington. Third. Norway. Solid%20Waste%20Management%20Strategy.). Economica: Paris. Business News Americas. Yanful. U. UNEP. Municipal waste Bingh. in Romania. European data set.Trade Council of Denmark. Waste Manage- West Africa — Contributing to Food Security and Ur. G. Haight. rica. Waste/Pages/default. Environmental Protection Agency. Globalization. Batool. R.capetown.” Asomani-Boateng. 2003. Groupement de recherche international.. Stanford. Denmark Ministry of ban Sanitation.pdf RC Workshop on Solid Waste Management. 2003 Conference. June 2006. Bangladesh. EPA. 2008. Available at: http://www. European Federation of Waste Management and En. “Municipal solid waste management in Tehran: Current practices.necz. Pakistan. Wits University. Chalam. EPA 430-R-06-005. Sound Environmental Management of CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board. and M.S. study in the city of Kathmandu. Ontario.4. management systems in Canada and Ghana: A case study of the cities of London. Solid waste management and greenhouse gases — A life-cycle assessment of emission and sinks. viewpub. 2009. EPA. UNEP Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific and GIRD-Adrenal. B. http://dataservice. “Comparison of municipal solid waste Composition.bna.” Waste Management 29:2779-2786. National vironmental Services. Al-Yousfi. 2008. Communication. capital of Nepal. “Generation. Savarypour. State of the Environment in Dushanbe.gov. ment — A regional market overview. E. 2008. Dhaka. 2009. & Atudorei. University of Science and Technology. 2005.. Croatia. Solid waste management. SAA. R. Waste to Resources: World Waste Survey. Nawaz. R. Urbanization and CEROI. “Reusing organic Waste Management 28:929-934. M.12.org. 2008. M. “Waste.nic. Ghana. Philippe and Catherine Gaillochet. Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management Serbia).” Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Green- house Gases. Chowdhury. B. Prepared by Ban- gladesh DoE. Karanjit. West- ern Balkan (Albania. S. Solid Waste Removal in Maputo and Durban. management in Lahore City District. India). 2008.eea. L. Municipal%20Solid%20Waste/Waste_generation_and_ ponsah.aspx (accessed November 2009). Bosnia-Herzegovina.zm/reports/National%20 Bangladesh Department of Environment. Opportunities for utilizing waste biomass for generation per capita. A. July 3 . Zand. Shrestha.88% in 2003 – Bolivia. M. O. 2009. U. 2006b. Solid Waste Management Strategy for Zambia. From Alam. storage. IDRC. Deihimfard. 3rd Edition. 2004. European Environment Agency. DC. 7. “Municipal solid waste Washington.asp?id=4056 (accessed November 2009). Workshop mericas. Second. 2008. 2004. Smith (Ed. Municipal Solid Waste — Waste generation and compo- sition data. 2004. A. 2004. Solid Waste — The Landfill Bioreactor. Environmental Protection Agency.html (accessed October 2009). and M. opportunities and challenges. Damghani. Solid waste generation up Grest. solid waste in urban farming in African cities: a chal- lenge for urban planners.” In Urban Agriculture in Denmark Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Available at: www. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Africa.eu/atlas/viewdata/ Oslo.gdri-africancities. September 2006. REFERENCES 95 References Achankeng. Belarus Ministry of Natural Resources and Environ. G. Mensah. Available at: http://cpcb. 2004.jsp?id=283762&idioma=I on Informality and Access to Services in Cities of Af- &sector=&type=NEWS (accessed October 2009).za/en/Solid- Waste Management 28:1088-1097. Available at: energy in Uganda. 1999. (accessed November 2009). Foreign Affairs . Eric. Available at: http://www.. and ITN-BUET. E.S.

N. O.96 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES — KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Hanrahan. Available at http://www. Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. 2009. Srivastava. 9. Olson. Report on the Regional Evaluation of Munici- Jin. K. Chee- seman.. Waste Man. J.R. Austria..” Waste Management 27:1680-1689. Lam. 2004. Kamgnia Di. tions Framework Convention on Climate Change..” Parrot. 2006. 2007. Waste and Climate Change.” Waste Management 29:1982-1995. and M. Meyer (eds).” Waste the Caribbean.” Waste Development Working Papers No. World Bank. 2006. Urban and Local Government Working Paper.009). 2009. Ni. and N. Dave. A.S. Ali. Metz. Coordinating Centre. Pan American Health Organization. Harnpornchai. for solid waste management in Southeast Asian coun- ISWA. structure Department.R. Mongolia’s Initial National Communication to the Report on Climate Change — First National Communication United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Chaudhry.. Bolaane. National Environmental Action Plan. Cameroon. D. M. ings from a study in Dar es Salaam city. Government of Macedonia. Management & Research 19:342-353. D. U and H. “Instruments for sus- agement in China: Issues and Recommendations. and L. tion on Climate Change. V. “Municipal solid waste management in Africa: Strat- egies and livelihoods in Yaoundé.A. White Paper. “Solid waste management in Abuja. 2007. Management 26:1045-1051. S. R. geria. 2005. D. 2008. “Sustainable solutions work Convention on Climate Change.” Waste Management 25:101-109. Bogner. and B.Special Gas Inventories. Ran. Ngara T. Wang. Lithuania’s Macedonia. D. Contribu- tion of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report METAP. Davidson.metap-solidwaste. Latvia Ministry of Environment. L. A.. (Eds). Mohammed. Mediterranean Environmental Techni- of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change... Eggleston H. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Burge. OECD. 1996.R. J. S. IPCC. . Municipal Solid Waste in India — Overview and Chal. tries. Thomas. A. J. IPCC. Kgathi.M. Macedonia. 2005. “Solid waste collection solidos/evaluacion/i/index. Bosch. 2000. 2006. Habitat International 30:769-780. 2006. A strategic approach. OECD. B. Kenya Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. Miwa K. East Asia Infra. Peterson. Sharp. Available at: http://www. 2009. S. Imam. Lead Author. What a Waste: Solid ing the solid waste management in Phnom Penh city: Waste Management in Asia. Hoornweg. to the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Frame- Ngoc. First National Communication of Kenya to the Confer- lenges. 2005.C. L. Buendia year Review of the Barbados Programme of Action for the L. Third and Fourth National Communication on Climate Change. 2002. Urban tainable solid waste management in Botswana. 2005. “The municipal solid waste system and solid waste characterization at the municipality of Veles. Wilson. Pacific Environment Outlook . and B. D. Chapter cal Assistance Programme Solid Waste Management 10 — Waste management. Lithuania Ministry of Environment. P. 2001. World Bank Environment Unit South Asia ence of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Conven- Region. M. ternational Solid Waste Association. “Solid waste man- pal Solid Waste Management Services in Latin America and agement in Macaco: Practices and challenges.cepis. and C. 2008. Ramakrishna. Sotamenou. Vienna. UNEP and SPREP PROE. 2005. IGES. OECD Environmental Data — Waste. and Tanabe K. org/ (accessed October 2. “Improv- Hoornweg.. Fourth National Communication of the Republic of Latvia to the United Na- Hristovski. Kum. PAHO. In. Cambridge University Press. Israel Ministry of the Environment.” Waste Management 28:468-472.” Waste Management 29:986-995. Mongolia Ministry of Nature and the Environment. World Bank. 2006. P. Schnitzer.ops-oms. Tanzania. December 2009. Hild.html#Scene_1 (accessed by the private sector: Households’ perspective—Find. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse McIntyre. Israel National 2001. and S. 1999.org/residuos- Kassim. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Edition for the Mauritius International Meeting for the 10- Gas Inventories Programme. L.. November 2009). D. East Asia and Pacific Region. Z. B.

Addendum to: Sixth compilation and synthesis of initial national communications from Parties not Shekdar. Cuba. and G. 2003. M. 2009. R. REFERENCES 97 Pasang. Havana. May 1979. T. V. http://unstats. Solid Waste Management in Indian Ocean Is- lands and Seychelles.un. Ruijs. Centre for Asia and the Pacific. Z. A. McGraw-Hill. Slovenia’s Fourth National Commu. in the ESCWA Region. Thimphu. UNSD.” solid waste problems in Jakarta. N. 2009. Results UNEP/GRID-Arendal. Perera. Management 27:1924-1938.” UNEP/ Bhutan.com/article. USA. Waste Management Experts Meet.. 2006. M. H.” In Proceedings of the UNEP. 1993. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. “The state of solid waste manage- ment in Nigeria. gases. 2003. Tang. O. and J. State of the Environment — Maldives. http://unfccc. Heart.. Solomon. W. 2009. M. grated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and id Waste Management in Freetown. Payet. “Mu- (accessed October 2009). Agency of Liberia. Kumaran (Eds.” Waste Waste Management 28:2003-2012. Hagos. G. Waste Management 29:1438-1448. Suresh and T. 2005. UN-Habitat.php3?id_article=955# Turan.grida..). Inc. August 18-20-2008. Sitorus. 2009. New York. 2003. A. December 6. “Sustainable solid waste manage. 2009. 2005. United Nations Statistics Division. “Household bourhood-based waste management: A solution for waste disposal in Mekelle city. G. Nations Environment Programme Regional Resource M.” The Patriotic Management Issues. nication under the United Nations Framework Con. “Municipal solid waste compo- of the first national solid waste survey in the urban areas of sition: for 7 OECD countries and 7 Asian cities. 2002. 2004.” in coordination with the Environmental Protection Waste Age. Moore. S. Turkmenistan Ministry of Nature Protection. 2007.” Waste Management 29:465-469. Available at http://www. K. “Assessment asian_cities (accessed April 2010). A. S. United Third International Conference on Environment and Health. and D. Bhutan. M. H. and S. and F. http://maps.” Environmental Research Journal sions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse 3(3):81-86. Available at: ment. ing. Wang. 2009. included in Annex I to the Convention United Na- ment: An integrated approach for Asian countries.. Tadesse. Slovenia Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning. Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities.int/resource/ docs/2005/sbi/eng/18a02. Turkmenistan: Initial National Communication on Climate Change. Govern- ment of Singapore.” UNESCWA. Northern Ethiopia. Ergun. Chen. Mujeebu. Yearbook of Statistics Singapore. United Nations Environment Programme Scrap Tires Arise As Special Disposal Problem. “Excise Tax on New Tires Proposed: in Liberia. Vanguard Newspaper. Assessment of Solid Waste Management Peterson. U. 2009. Indonesia. 2009. Akdemir. December 15 -17. National Conference on Solid Waste Manage. Çoruh. 2007. Available at: vention on Climate Change. Vigil. C. UNEP..thepa- trioticvanguard.pdf (accessed July 2010) Singapore. 2008. UNSD Environmental Indicators — Waste. Hassan. Tchobanoglous. nicipal solid waste management strategies in Turkey. Inventories of anthropogenic emis- Case Study of Bamako. “An Overview of the Issue of Solid Waste Management in Sri Lanka.no/go/graphic/municipal_solid_ waste_composition_for_7_oecd_countries_and_7_ Saeed. Phuntsho.htm (accessed November 2009). Samake. Yangden. . of municipal solid waste generation and recyclable materials potential in Kuala Lumpur. 2007. 1979. 2000. S. India. Hlaing. Compendium of Environmental Statistics Waste Management 29:2209-2213. 2007.. “Neigh. Thiesen. “World Bank Report: Sol. Bunch. nai. 2003. 2008.org/unsd/ENVIRONMENT/qindi- cators. GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library. Malaysia.” Waste Management 29:2787-2790..” tions Framework Convention on Climate Change. October 27 — November 1. Inte- Patriotic Vanguard. “State and Management of Solid Wastes in Mali: UNFCCC.

98 URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERIES — KNOWLEDGE PAPERS USAID. Avail. Koprivanac. Jointly prepared by World Bank.nl (ac- cessed May 2010). 2009.the Concept. 2008.htm (ac- cessed November 2009). Experiences from the Urban 2004 — Solid Waste. plication of multi-criteria decision-making on strate- mentally Sound Design and Management Capacity gic municipal solid waste management in Dalmatia. A. van de Klundert. N. 2004. WASTE. Croatia. .waste. G. Vietnam Ministry of Environment and Natural Re- sources. ENCAP (Environ. Anschütz.“Ap- Scale Activities in Africa. Integrated Sustainable Waste Management.encapafrica.org/egssaa. WASTE.” Waste Management 28:2192-2201. and J. 2001. Tools World Bank. Available at http://www. S. Vego. 2005. able at: http://www. Kučar-Dragičević. Vietnam Environment Monitor for Decision-makers. Building for Partners and Programs in Africa). Waste Expertise Programme (1995-2001).. 2nd Ed. Environmental Guidelines for Small. and CIDA.

.

NW WHAT A WASTE Washington. 20433 USA Email: urbanhelp@worldbank. DC.worldbank. No. 15 .org Website: www. contact: KNOWLEDGE PAPERS Urban Development and Local Government Unit Sustainable Development Network The World Bank 1818 H Street.org/urban A Global Review of Solid Waste Management March 2012.For more information about the Urban Development Series.